Food stamps should be abolished. Let bums work or starve

Food stamps should be abolished. Let bums work or starve.

Other urls found in this thread:

ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/economic-linkages/
snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-frequently-asked-questions/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

This x 1,000,000. Redistributive welfare is r-selection and r-selection is cancer to civilization.

Agree, hunger is a very strong motivator

Nah we should keep the but make the bums work for it and somehow make it to where they can't pawn them off for money or drugs

Especially for fat people, and most poor people are fat as fuck.

>make the bums work for it
If they're working, then that means they're getting paid, which means they don't need handouts. I realize it's hard for people on minimum wage to make ends meet, but the solution to that problem is to abolish payroll taxes, sales taxes, and inflation, all of which hurt the poor.

>he thinks food stamps exist to feed people
>not to give a backhanded subsidy to the food industry
lol

The food industry will make their money either way because we all have to eat.

I agree. Libretarian Monarchism is the only way to go forward.

You'd be surprised how many Americans have full time jobs and are still on food stamps. Those people aren't bums. I can say with experience, minimum wage jobs fucking blow, and the people who show up 9-5 everyday for dogshit wages aren't bums.

Let them buy food with the money they earn at work. If they don't earn enough, lower their taxes.

I lived in a trailer for just over 3 years, bartending at an airport. My wife stayed home and took care of our newborn and 2 year old. I made $15,000 (on paper, cause cash tips) each year I bartended and if we didn't have food stamps we would have starved to death.

My goal in life at that point was to get a house and GET OFF FOOD STAMPS. I got a better job 2 years ago, havent needed food stamps, and own a house (Mortgage) now.

The food stamps helped, but they weren't my crutch. Its hurt my pride to have to use them, but formula is expensive and I took the hit on my pride to feed my family.

Im a 30 year old white guy for reference.

I don't see how that would change the final result on the taxpayer. If we lowered their taxes, legislators would make everyone else's taxes higher to pick up the slack. If we give them food stamps, the taxpayers pay for that. In either case, normal taxpayers are still coughing up money for them.

>I would much rather watch my society disintegrate than subsidize the poor
>I believe that everyone can be rich in a society


lmao white people jesus christ yo

>legislators would make everyone else's taxes higher to pick up the slack
Not necessarily. There are billions of dollars of the federal budget that could easily be cut out. Start by legalizing all victimless crimes and pardoning those in prison for them. You have no idea how expensive incarceration is. After that, abolish useless departments like the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the EEOC, the Dept. of Energy, etc.
Not an argument.
Nobody cares.

you really haven't presented an argument either, you've simply written up an opinion. Make an actual argument as well, you're the OP.

People should buy their own food with their own money. If they don't earn enough money to feed themselves, that's their problem.

Right, well, that's eh, sort of an argument. Here's my counter-point.

The positive externalities created by the provision of a programme such as a food stamp program outweigh the negative consequences of a lack thereof. In an economy, the exchange of goods and services is the mechanism by which wealth is created. If that exchange is slowed down and/or hindered, the entire economy (including those who can afford their own food) are worse off, as they will not make as much money.

That is not to say anything about the financial/political instability that removing a programme like that would cause, to the ultimate detriment of those who can afford to splurge on caviar.

Wrong direction. Where you start is by drug testing applicants for food stamps, limit the amount of time one can be on them, and then slowly step down the budget spent funding food stamps.

If you abolish it all at once people will riot.

Which may be what you want. No Idea where you think pardoning incarcerated people will help abolish the SNAP program.

>exchange of goods and services is the mechanism by which wealth is created
That's where your wrong. Exchange of economic goods is just that, exchange. Economic goods are created by production. Since food stamps are given away for free, there's no production involved. It's just gibsmedat.
>Wrong direction. Where you start is by drug testing applicants for food stamps, limit the amount of time one can be on them, and then slowly step down the budget spent funding food stamps.
Whether food stamps should be abolished all at once or abolished gradually is another conservation. The point is that they should be abolished entirely. Drug testing is a cuckservative feelgood solution. It just costs the taxpayer more money.
>Which may be what you want. No Idea where you think pardoning incarcerated people will help abolish the SNAP program.
I never said it would. I said it would help reduce government spending.

>economic goods are created by production
man what are you talking about of course they are. WEALTH is created by an exchange of economic goods and services; when you exchange food for food stamps, you create wealth for food suppliers/producers. The money doesn't "stop" anywhere.

ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/economic-linkages/

>since food stamps are given away for free, there's no production involved, it's just gibsmedat
As long as anything is scarce, it has an inherent value as a consequence. Food stamps aren't just worthless gibsmedats, they are a way for the government to keep the economy going. Here's how it works:

>food stamps are handed out
>people use them to buy food
>supermarkets make money
>can keep turning profit and paying salaries

also, have you ever looked at who recieves food stamps?

snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-frequently-asked-questions/

Food stamps are a long-term investment. History has shown time and time again when the mechanisms for social mobility are absent a society stagnates, and a society stagnating is macroeconomically bad across the board.

Also, out of curiosity, do you believe education should be publicly funded?

Does it cost more to drug test an applicant, or to feed them for a year?

Does it cost more to step down the budget and slowly remove the program, or call in the National Guard because all the welfare queens and white trash start rioting in the streets because you took away their Fewed Stampz?

>Does it cost more to drug test an applicant, or to feed them for a year?
They both cost more than letting them starve.
>Does it cost more to step down the budget and slowly remove the program, or call in the National Guard because all the welfare queens and white trash start rioting in the streets because you took away their Fewed Stampz?
Considering that 308 only costs about a dollar per shot, I'd say it would be much cheaper to kill them.
It's not an investment. Welfare bums are nothing more than parasites. The food they eat would be better used to feed productive classes of society.

No food stamps if your bmi is overweight. Lol yes! Fatass parents would starve their niglets

BMI is a phony measure of fatness. It doesn't account for the fact that weight can be fat, bone, or muscle, and it doesn't account for the fact that volume is proportional to height cubed, not height squared.

>it's not an investment
Recent studies show that 44% of all SNAP participants are children (age 18 or younger), with almost two-thirds of SNAP children living in single-parent households. In total, 76% of SNAP benefits go towards households with children, 11.9% go to households with disabled persons, and 10% go to households with senior citizens.

Now, let's break that down.
>44% going to children/76% going to households with kids below the 130% of the federal poverty line
how's feeding kids not a long-term investment?

>11.9% go to households with disabled citizens
True, arguably not an investment. Though, I wonder if you'd be against it if, e.g. those disabilities stem from fighting wars for the U.S. or what have you.

>10% senior citizens
Considering that odds are they paid a lot of taxes as they earned income throughout their careers, I'd call it fair. Not an investment, true, but fair.

Also, I make 2-3 points per post and you pick one. Why's that?

Go full North Korea on American citizens that want to eat.

Big difference between phasing a program out, and murdering 43 million Americans.

All government aid recipients should have to pass drug tests. I know a dumb cunt who gets welfare, housing vouchers, SNAP, and food stamps, and she and her shithead bf are always posting snaps of them rolling blunts, going out to clubs, and getting cosmetic surgeries.

Only a small percentage will actually riot. Most of them will just get jobs and accept it.
I don't care how young or old you are or whether you are disabled. Feeding yourself is your responsibility, not mine.
>Considering that odds are they paid a lot of taxes as they earned income throughout their careers, I'd call it fair. Not an investment, true, but fair.
Though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. Taxes have already been spent. You can't get that money back without taxing another generation.

>All government aid recipients should have to pass drug tests
No, they shouldn't. That would only cost the taxpayer's more money. Don't put more strings attached to welfare. Just abolish it.

*taxpayers

>I don't care how young or old you are whether you are disabled, feeding yourself is your responsibility, not mine
I didn't realize you were stacking up kool-aid and driving around south central LA giving thirsty black kids a drink or two for free.

>taxes have already been spent
yes, yes they have, not in the way you think though.

>12 years of public schooling financed by a preceding generation's taxes
>roads financed by previous generations used by this one
etc etc

>you can't get that money back without taxing another generation
true, but the generation objecting to being taxed has had other people's tax dollars spent on it for the better part of the first two decades of their lives directly, and a lot more indirectly. That's how government works.

>I didn't realize you were stacking up kool-aid and driving around south central LA giving thirsty black kids a drink or two for free.
I pay taxes that fund their food stamps, so yes, I am feeding them.
>true, but the generation objecting to being taxed has had other people's tax dollars spent on it for the better part of the first two decades of their lives directly, and a lot more indirectly. That's how government works.
And I'm against that too. I'm against government schools, etc.

>Just Accept It.

When you run for the office that provides you with the power to abolish SNAP, be sure to use that as your campaign slogan.

I look forward to seeing you on tv telling people they will accept it, or take a bullet.

>I pay taxes that fund their food stamps
how do you know it was your tax dollars that funded someone's food stamps?

>I'm against that too, against government schools, etc.

Man like, you're either really short-sighted or you've been eh, fooled by the whole "unfettered free market" thing. I'm curious as to which it is desu

>t. fatty

Not an argument.
>Man like, you're either really short-sighted or you've been eh, fooled by the whole "unfettered free market" thing. I'm curious as to which it is desu
Not an argument.
>how do you know it was your tax dollars that funded someone's food stamps?
Because tax money goes into the general fund.
There are already states with 3 month limits on food stamps. I haven't seen any riots in those states among people whose food stamps ran out. Also, anyone who's going to riot over gibsmedat deserves to be shot anyway.

I'm soft on this, subsidies for Anglos is fine. Everyone could easily live phat if we just looked after our own.
Everyone could have plenty and have lots of spare time or have mega loads if they work hard for it.
Stop subsidising foreign countries, put all migrants to work for buttons.
Our toil is unnecessary. Our close ancestors planned on ending it but billionaires got greedy and went for globalism.
You're working 90% for Jews 9% for blacks.

>tax money goes into the general fund
yes, but just because it goes into a general fund doesn't mean -your- tax dollars were spent on it.
>not an argument
alright, fine. Why are you against government schools, etc?

>>food stamps are handed out
>>people use them to buy food
>>supermarkets make money
>>can keep turning profit and paying salaries
Because if the government didn't tax people (which requires a huge, expensive bureaucracy) to redistribute other people's wealth (which requires a huge, expensive bureaucracy) then that money wouldn't have been used to purchase goods and services or to give out loans to start businesses. Literally any money that is not redistributed by the government is kept in giant money bins like Scrooge McDuck and is not economically productive.

This. Darwinism is objectively in the best interest for survival of the species.

>yes, but just because it goes into a general fund doesn't mean -your- tax dollars were spent on it.
That's exactly what it means.
>alright, fine. Why are you against government schools, etc?
That's a different topic, but the principle is the same. Government creates two classes of people: net recipients and net payers.