Would America Be Better Off Without Food Stamps?
August 10, 2017
Alex Henderson, Periodista and Technical Writer
It depends on one’s definition of “better off.” If making the lives of the U.S.’ poor as difficult as possible (the goal of modern-day Republicans and Ayn Rand worshippers such as Rep. Paul Ryan) is one’s idea of “better off,” then yes, food stamps should be eliminated along with any other social program that doesn’t directly benefit the 1%. Today’s Republicans believe that the worse conditions are for the poor, the more they will be motivated to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. The problem with that line of thinking, however, is that countries with a lot of desperation tend to have a lot of violent crime and instability, while countries that are not run exclusively for the 1% (Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands) and have programs that benefit the poor and the middle class tend to have greater stability and much lower crime rates. In Pedro San Sula, Honduras or Guatemala City, the rich are much more likely to face kidnappings, violent home invasions, etc. than they are in “socialist hellhole” cities such as Rome, Stockholm, Berlin, Oslo, Brussels, Copenhagen, Barcelona or Nice.
But hey, any Republican who wants to argue against having any type of social safety net is welcome to visit Pedro San Sula and share the “enlightened” philosophy of Ayn Rand and “bootstraps” with residents of the poorest areas. Better yet, they can visit Mogadishu, Somalia (the ultimate Randian “paradise”) and babble on and on about how unfair it is that, in 2014, Somalia’s rich had to start paying taxes again after 23 without taxation. And they can see for themselves just how “well” things work in the type of have/have not Randian society they long for.
90 Views · 2 Upvotes
