Trump says food stamps recipients are largely democrats

People still want free meals. But there is no free meal. Someone else pays for it. If you want to be poor and hungry, you can. But asking me to feed you so you dont have to work harder to be self-sufficient? What exactly do I get in return?

Why did God make rich people?

Oh, so he could go to Epstein's Island.

Studies have found that SNAP participants are more likely to be obese, have poorer dietary habits, and consume more "junk food," sugar-sweetened beverages, and high-fat dairy. So SNAP literally kills people before their time. At least Canada's euthanasia program is honest.

I approve of high sugar diet, but high fat diet is pointless. Still, I dont prefer paying for other man's sugar.

Also, if they are obese, why do they need free meals? Wouldnt less meals make more sense?

I suppose part of the reason is that if you don't work for food, it's hard to burn the calories.

Studies have found that SNAP participants are more likely to be obese, have poorer dietary habits, and consume more "junk food," sugar-sweetened beverages, and high-fat dairy. So SNAP literally kills people before their time.

It’s because they can’t afford healthier food options genius.

People still want free meals. But there is no free meal. Someone else pays for it.

Less than 1% of the population controls more wealth in this country than the bottom 50%. I don’t have a problem with them funding programs that assist with basic survival needs.

If you want to be poor and hungry, you can.

7% of the wealth in this country is divided amongst 80% of the population. That’s not reflective of an economy where choices and skills are what drives people’s ability to make ends meet.

This is a perfect example of one of the most fundamental dividing lines between economic liberals vs economic conservatives. You guys really think income and wealth is just about choices and abilities, having little to nothing to do with circumstances that are in many cases beyond our control. The numbers cited above alone prove the later narrative false.

It’s because they can’t afford healthier food options genius

This argument is baseless, and you habitually use ad homs as your go-to evidence on this site. You give American Democrats a bad rap here. Normal people around the world must hold back a lot of mocking of you due to basic decency.

You Americans have both the fattest and the richest poor people on the planet. The very idea that a poor American must buy a 5-dollar bag of Doritos because a can of beans and a box of rice just cost so much more, well, at that point, you are only gaslighting yourself, and mocking yourself in the process in the most smug and condescending way imaginable.

Less than 1% of the population controls more wealth in this country than the bottom 50%.

thats called good hard work. No one stops you from working and becoming wealthy. But if you want to be useless and then ask for those who are not useless to fund you so you have even less motivation to be useful, I think that is delusion.

You guys really think income and wealth is just about choices and abilities

Unless someone stole to make wealth, I am afraid all what we are left with is him getting his wealth in a proper way. If you dont like private property, you are free to donate yours to poor people. But arguing to steal money from people who actually were most useful to society, and giving it to people who are most useless, is a path to USSR socialism, and we already saw that outcome.

thats called good hard work. No one stops you from working and becoming wealthy.

Wealth isn’t attained through hard work, that gets you to making a living. When it’s not a product of inheritance or nepotism, wealth is attained through investments, financial or otherwise that have gone right. That’s a product of good ideas yes, but also of luck to a large degree, as well as who you know.

Living paycheck to paycheck meanwhile, can be the result of a lot of things. Medical bills for example, because in America poor health is one of the fastest and most predictable means of bankruptcy. Having to take care of loved ones, investments gone bad, etc. Not to mention lack of opportunity in the first place.

But arguing to steal money from people who actually were most useful to society, and giving it to people who are most useless

That’s the whole point and problem. You really think a person’s wealth is a direct product of how useful they were to society. You really think the guy sitting at the top of a multi billion dollar company is the one who was innovative and not the army of foot soldiers that actually built the product.

Do you really think 1% of the population is working harder than half the country combined? What are they working, 10,000 hours a day? Do you really think the bottom 80% of the country only makes 7% of the contributions to our economy? Of course not, that’s absurd.

Anyone can become wealthy, everyone cannot be. You can disparage any individual for not doing enough to make it all you want, but when you zoom out and look at what’s going on at the societal level, what’s happening has nothing to do with hard work, it is a predictable evolution of a capitalistic society.

You really think a person’s wealth is a direct product of how useful they were to society

Did they steal the wealth? If not, they obtained it through trade, and trade depends on how useful you are to others.

Being useful to society isn't a function of hours worked. If that was the case, anyone that dug a hole and filled it back up all day would be a millionaire. And the mechanics will never be as useful to society as the engineers that create the machines for them to work on.

 it is a predictable evolution of a capitalistic society.

The predictable outcome is a society with the richest poor in the history of human civilization, as it is the only system that rewards the radical outliers of humanity for their incalculable contributions for all of society. With more rewards comes even higher standards of living for the least productive members. That's the predictable evolution of such a system. "1st world problems" isn't a meme in a vacuum.

Trump crypto will ensure "1st world problems" isn't a meme in a vacuum.

Did they steal the wealth? If not, they obtained it through trade, and trade depends on how useful you are to others.

Wrong, trade depends on how useful the product which they control was to society. Remove the individual, and product remains just as useful.

In a capitalistic society, wealth begets wealth. To turn a thousand dollars into a million is difficult on par with winning the lottery. To turn a million dollars into two million, with proper discipline, is inevitable.

The more money you have the more powerful you are, thereby making it easier to attain more money. Walmart is a perfect example of this. The larger they got, the bigger purchaser they were to their suppliers. The bigger purchaser they became, the more they could squeeze their suppliers for cheaper product. The cheaper the product, the more they sold and the bigger they got. Mom and pop stores could no longer compete, and many closed down as a result, making Walmart even bigger.

That’s how capitalism works, and if left unfettered, it will continue to go in this direction until there is no middle class left at all.

So no, it is not an accident or coincidence that 1% of the population owns more wealth than the bottom 50%. That’s not a product of a small handful of individuals being so amazing in their hard work and innovation that they outpaced everyone else by miles. This is just how capitalism works. It’s not a system where we are rewarded for our efforts, it’s a system where we are rewarded for our circumstances that were largely out of our control.

And I haven’t even gotten to inheritances and nepo babies.

the mechanics will never be as useful to society as the engineers that create the machines for them to work on.

And yet a society cannot function without either of them.

Wrong, trade depends on how useful the product which they control was to society. Remove the individual, and product remains just as useful

I think this has to be one of most low IQ statements I ever read. You cannot "remove the individual" from his skills and products without committing theft or worse. So again, if people choose to buy my products for billions and make me rich, that is called trade. If you oppose trade, you can say so. Well, you already did.

And mechanics can't function without engineers. That's the hierarchy of societal value. Society rewards those who multiply the productivity of others and that’s why innovation and design naturally sit above grunt labor in terms of economic value, even though both are necessary for civilization to run. Queens need worker ants, but there can only be one queen. An ant colony where everyone is a queen or a worker will die quickly. Thus, natural evolution shows that theoretical communism and egalitarianism is not a fit trait for survival. The result of such a social experiment is entropy with no innovation, no incentive, and no hierarchy of utilitarian function to sustain real growth. Nature’s template for natural societies makes that pretty clear.

Again, 1st world memes don't exist in a vacuum. Those tropey memes exists through a capital system where productivity is rewarded through ownership. Or in nature through the transcendence of basic survival as with the ant colony or a wolf pack run by an alpha, where overpopulation is the only real challenge faced. Until these 1st world problems are replaced with actual survival problems, there's no natural stress to change anything with the system.

 it is a predictable evolution of a capitalistic society.

It's far more accurate to say a capitalistic society is the predictable natural evolution of any natural society of any species, where specialization is rewarded, promoted, and optimized. Every thriving species develops systems of evolved specialization where certain desirable fit traits or behaviors are rewarded and sustained because they enhance collective efficiency or survival odds. That's an observable fact.

You cannot "remove the individual" from his skills and products without committing theft or worse.

You absolutely can remove an individual from a product. Ownership rights is an entirely different conversation. We’re talking about contributions to society, how we measure them, and how those contributions compare to societal rewards.

if people choose to buy my products for billions and make me rich, that is called trade.

Congratulations, that is what it’s called.

Unfortunately that’s not what we’re talking about. This is about how the rules work and whether those rules create an environment where people are rewarded for what they actually contributed.

What separates right wing thinking from left wing thinking is that right wingers like yourself think the free market in a capitalistic society is a self fulfilling prophecy. If you’re rich, then you contributed. If you’re poor, you didn’t. To you it’s just that simple.

But in reality, the situation is far more nuanced than that. First you have to start with the fact that most of the wealth in this country was inherited or built off of inheritances, so that right there refutes this thinking.

Then you have to take into account what connections people have. Stephen Miller’s wife just started a podcast and her first guest was the Vice President of the United States. She didn’t work her ass off to get there, it was handed to her, and it got millions of views just because of that.

You also have to factor luck. Some investments work out, some don’t. It’s not always because someone did their homework or didn’t, some things are not foreseeable or within our control.

Then there’s personal circumstances, like medical situations that can easily bankrupt someone, or having to care for a loved one. Again, these things are not easily controllable if at all.

And now after all that we can finally get to the conversation of how our ideas and efforts contribute to society. In most cases, the individual is irrelevant, the system is what matters. You get hired as a CEO and make millions of dollars. Do you really think you’re the only person who can do this job? You really think no one else could do it just as well? Of course not, that’s nonsense. There will always be someone else to fill your shoes.

You came up with a great idea, you think there weren’t hundreds if not thousands of other people who thought of it too? In a country of over 300 million people you’d have to be a clinical narcissist to believe that. You aren’t the only one to think of it, you’re just the first person to get it across the finish line.

And when that product hits the market and you rake in millions, you think you did that yourself? Of course not. Not only did it take an army, but you also stood on the shoulders of everyone before you who created the systems you used to make your money. The roads other people built to which you transported your product. The internet access to which you marketed your product, etc.

You didn’t contribute a as much as you think you did. This isn’t to say you didn’t do a great thing and deserve a huge reward for it, it’s a question of how much actually aligns with that contribution.

And the above is kind of a best case scenario since we’re talking about actual innovation and not someone who, for example made it big on the stock market. The fact is that most wealth is not a product of some great new idea.

The point of all of this is that it takes a village, but in this system the rewards flow disproportionately to the top. No one person is actually worth a billion dollars, and one percent of the population is definitely not worth more than the bottom half. Our economy is more like a game than an actual measure of worth, and we would all be better off if it were brought at least a little bit closer to worth than what more closely aligns with a lottery of birth.

I think this has to be one of most low IQ statements I ever read.

It’s because you don’t read, you just inject whatever you wanted to hear.

And mechanics can't function without engineers. That's the hierarchy of societal value. Society rewards those who multiply the productivity of others and that’s why innovation and design naturally sit above grunt labor in terms of economic value, even though both are necessary for civilization to run.

None of this refutes a word I’ve said.

An ant colony where everyone is a queen or a worker will die quickly.

No one is arguing for anything like this.

Every thriving species develops systems of evolved specialization where certain desirable fit traits or behaviors are rewarded and sustained because they enhance collective efficiency or survival odds. That's an observable fact.

Still waiting for you to write something that goes against anything I’ve said.

Red states =/= red voters, because there are plenty of blue voters within said red states. Your attempt to make a point is a fallacy of division.

Excerpt from "The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients" (link)

Of these, about one-in-five (22%) of Democrats say they had received food stamps compared with 10% of Republicans. About 17% of political independents say they have received food stamps.

The share of food stamp beneficiaries swells even further when respondents are asked if someone else living in their household had ever received food stamps. According to the survey, about three in ten Democrats (31%) and about half as many Republicans (17%) say they or someone in their household has benefitted from the food stamp program.

But when the political lens shifts from partisanship to ideology, the participation gap vanishes. Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps (17% for each group), according to the survey.

So, depending on how you look at it, someone on the left is either equally or more likely to be on food stamps than someone on the right. But since the relevant quotes from Trump and you are about partisanship, not ideology: Trump's statement is accurate, and your point fails.

You absolutely can remove an individual from a product

Not without committing theft. And as I said, unless you can prove these people got their wealth by stealing, you have no point. Whatever other points you bring up, luck, inheritance...ect. are irrelevant. You get rich in trade only if other people agree to give you their money. There is no luck there. It must be an agreement. Do you oppose trade?

In a capitalistic society, wealth begets wealth. To turn a thousand dollars into a million is difficult on par with winning the lottery. To turn a million dollars into two million, with proper discipline, is inevitable.

So you admit America is full of many undisciplined, child-like minds. Evolution has a solution for this condition. Funny that you bring up the lottery as the behavior of an undisciplined budgeter. It's a tropey example of telling on yourself. But budgeting without "proper discipline" and still being able to live without any real existential threats is yet another example of 1st world problems. Most countries in about 40% to 50% of the world have nothing to budget with because their society is like an uncapitalistic ant colony with zero stored food for anyone, regardless of "proper discipline."

God didn't make rich people, people make rich people. God doesn't control monetary outcomes just as god doesn't control the outcome of anything. People are 100% responsible for the outcome of everything excluding natural disasters and god doesn't control those either.

People need to stop making common sense issues left or right politically

Here are indisputable proofs.

1:The poor you have with you always.

Jesus himself said that, and history proves it time after time in every single society.

2: Everyone has the right to persue wealth and to seek life in the pattern they see fit (as long as its legal)

If people are able to persue a lifestyle of wealth, they most likely will. If people wish to forsake morality for the sake of gain, they most likely will.

I have been on the ebt program, i have been in low places, the rules have changed slightly since i got off of them, but in general you can only buy food with them.

The place i was at then brought in a new rule that people must show they are either:

1: have a job and must list income and amount of dependents via household.

2: be seeking a job via program that is overseen by snap

3: have disabilities to warrant snap income and affect ability to work as verified by a doctor.

These guidelines have helped people to keep working, as well as regarding those who are unable to work.

There will always be people who are poor because of circumstances, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps only makes them trip. There are others who have addictions and health problems, and there are sluggards.

Dont make snap a political issue, be aware of how your state deals with it and help yourself to support yourself and your family.

There are also foodbanks, charities and some churches who distribute food as well.

As to wether cheaper food is of poorer quality, i would think that obvious in a capitalistic society. Unless you are a producer of the means of the food.

America has identified much of our farmlands bought by the chinese.