Have a heart /pol/. Do you really want this unlucky family to live in poverty? It's not their fault, it is the billionaires who oppress them.
>>66940268
They're white. They can't be poor according to bernie the cuck.
>>66940268
What about this family?
>>66940424
This
>>66940268
Indeed, this is surely the fault of the Wall Street boogeyman.
Damn those billionares for giving them jobs.
Damn those billionares for building their house.
Damn those billionares for paying tax dollars towards their welfare!
>>66940268
>I'd rather
You'd rather, I wouldn't.
>>66940424
FPBP
/thread
>>66940268
you have to either
1) be stupid
2) make stupid life choices
to be poor, so they can fuck off out of the gene pool like they should
>>66940424
This is kind of hilarious
>On that day 70 percent of the country became immune to poverty
Thanks berny
>>66940268
I'd rather let a thousand mangy bums starve and die
Than let one veteran not get the medical care they are entitled to.
>see I can do it too
>>66940268
That's not how real world works, you stupid socialist degenerate cunt
>>66940268
Why not both
>>66940604
>but they don't
>but they don't
>but they don't
>>66940268
>What is capitalism?
There have to be rich people, and there have to be poor people. The cosmic lottery doesn't discriminate.
>>66940268
>Do you really want this unlucky family to live in poverty?
Yes
>It's not their fault, it is the billionaires who oppress them.
billionaires oppressing them is a GOOD thing
Welfare is broken.
I agree these kids need to be looked after, but it's 70% of the time the mother's decision to split from the father and it's almost always the mother abusing welfare meant strictly for her children.
In almost all western nations, the greatest welfare recipients are technically children. Now do you understand the trap? Increase welfare and we're slowly fucked, remove it and children starve.
Yet another created modern problem.
>>66941419
You're not trying to tell me that the lower classes run Walmart, are you anon?
>>66940268
So why don't you actually do something to help the poor instead of making other people do it?
>>66942089
I think he's try to say that large multinationals are self serving, they only pay tax when they feel like it, if they build your home they're going to expect a return, and they're only ever going to create jobs that are opportunistic for them, in the mean time they'll keep outsourcing.
>>66941325
How about neither
>>66942053
>remove it and children starve.
Not always a bad thing. Now, hear me out:
In Freakonomics, the author looked at crime, specifically the decrease in violent crime in the last 30 years. The reason for this, is the criminals that would be committing them don't exist. The population of young adults, that would have grown up poor, neglected, abused, etc...to eventually become criminals didn't due to Roe v Wade. By aborting this subclass of future criminals, we got the subsequent decrease in crime.
I'd say the same holds true here. Feeding these single parent families would only be supporting a future leech on the system. They grow up on benefits, and so will be more likely to want to continue giving them, or increased no what is given, when they reach voting age. Plus, as these are often single mother homes, the risk of the kids growing up to be criminals, homeless, insane is increased (someone post the picture.). So, by letting them starve we are actually helping to break this cycle.
So, yes, I do want that "unlucky" family to starve. The mother should have made better choices.
>>66943524
Kek Lol. I thought it said not minding welfare abusers. What I meant is you can give out charity and still hinder welfare abuse
>>66940268
yeah, "your tax dollars"
>>66940268
tha'ts alright, but why other people's taxes?
