If conflict spawns innovation and growth, then aren't social safety nets effectively stifling innovation and growth?

If conflict spawns innovation and growth, then aren't social safety nets effectively stifling innovation and growth?

A hungry man is much more likely to develop the next missile guidance system than a fat satiated slob, after all.

Other urls found in this thread:

bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Duh. There is no reasonable logic behind anything Marxist

But National Socialists support safety nets.

Safety nets should be for those that fall off the bottom rung of the ladder temporarily. Not used to support google-americans and their 8 kids.

/thread

But isn't that just trying to find a strange justification to ignore the first point?

They did for their own race.

But only with an actual working health care industry.

But only with an actual working housing market.

But only for those who are proven to need state assistance and moreover deserve it.

There is nothing wrong with a medical system that is centered around the patients instead of it being based on abusing medicare payouts.

But the thing is unrestrained capitalism will destroy the benefits of a social safety net and look for ways to exploit it. Same as with niggers/kikes/latinos/mussies.

So a workable social safety net requires an all white country + the crippling of the most jewish aspects of capitalism.

I mean Sanders only discovered Kremlin Fried Chicken when he was in his 60s and getting ready to commit suicide because his wife left him and took the kids.

Social safety nets originated in the German Empire, and it was a center of scientific and technological development rivalled only by its own successor (the Third German Realm); nothing else in human history comes close.

Of course, it was all-white.

The problem in America is that you're funding googles.

What a stupid image.

That still falls under though.


It's funny because the medical organizations of today were founded because doctors were angry about the poor determining their pay rates back during the industrial revolution.

Plus whites abuse social safety nets pretty damned badly even without niggers/kikes/latinos/mussies. I'd know from my experience when I was younger and had to deal with SNAP/EBT folks,

No you. Pic related.

The German Empire didn't even last 50 years, so it obviously wasn't that great.

I mean the Holy Roman Empire had a better track record than that, m8.

reported for heresy

If you're going to respond with a one line post then why are you even fucking around.


??????

How does that even matter when the medical industry as we know it today is based solely around the passing of the medicare act

Remember, anyone who cannot or will not name the kike and name the nigger is

not one of us

This is where you would post data to back your point instead of making an argument that whites are the same as niggers

...

Especially since google doesn't index Holla Forums anyway.

nope

You seem upset.

Sure.

bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

and pic related.

If the average spent on social safety nets is %56,000 per person, then we can assume at least 5 billion is spent on poor white people every year (divided it by 2), which is roughly in line with Heritage's 1 trillion spent on welfare per year estimate when whites account for about half of all welfare. I don't see why you needed me to point that out though since you should already know that.

Obviously they got their asses kicked even though they had allies backing their shit up. Sounds like a complete failure to me.

Yep.

Before we comment on other ethnicities, if we removed all non-whites from America, then the poverty rate would just increase to a higher threshold and we'd still have approximately the same values, just without niggers/spics/kikes/etc. To this end I won't consider that an argument.

thanks for correcting the record

deport racism!!1

Retard.

That explains the technological marvels of starving shitskins

Stay salty.

I'm not talking about violent behavior, I'm talking strictly poverty and its implications of social safety nets.

Shitskins didn't really starve for most of human history though. They had lazy, easy access to food for the most part. This is pretty contradictory to the real story of folks heading into the mountains of Europe/Asia and having to actually try to survive in harsh environments.

Stay retarded.

No you.

god you're desperate

I've gotta go to work, so I guess I'll check if the thread is still up on my phone later.

And you're autistic.

Isn't inheritance effectively stifling innovation and growth?

A hungry man is much more likely to develop the next missile guidance system than a fat satiated slob, after all.

...

Yes, but most families lose their inheritance within 2-4 generations of gaining it. I believe the US Quintile research proves this point.

Anyways yeah, work.

...

Eh, not really, but you're a leftist who doesn't understand proportionality, so, it makes sense that you'd resort to anecdotes.

Correct. I can attest to this personally.

Then again, I'm glad I have the money. I needed it for very expensive therapy (or I would have killed myself). The universe gives everyone what they need.

There are psychologicla studies related to this, stress is generally not condusive to creative work. With some exception for art

lmao

...

Nice clickbait picture you stupid faggot.
>>>/4pol/

Great bait, even though it is an important topic

Yep. Just look at all the innovation and technology coming out of famine stricken Africa.

Mazlow's hiearchy of needs justifies welfare programs. What tier should the welfare stop at?