The funny part is the article at the same time arguing how much benefits people receive and thus them not being poor while at the same time pointing out the US

The funny part is the article at the same time arguing how much benefits people receive and thus them not being poor while at the same time pointing out the US is great despite social programs, heavily implying that it would be even better with even less taxation and less "government assistance programs" that provide "an incentive, and the means, not to work." I would find it a lot more fair to not counting all those benefits in my analysis, if I'd want to get rid of them.