His comment implies that people who use free services don't value them, they are naturally disrespectful, they are 'ripping off' hard workers, and are 'refusing to pay'. These are not neutral terms, they have historically (since Reagan at least) conservative valence.
'welfare queens' etc...
If you didn't notice this sleight of hand in the original comment, that means he did his work correctly.
His conclusion is that things should not be free and open, as a rule, because they won't generate money, attention, or respect if they are free.
He included food stamps in the middle of his list. This choice is not neutral.
The comment invites you to reframe your understanding of food stamps so as to later justify its dissolution as a result 'human nature'.
Food stamps are not intended to function like the other products he listed. Food stamps are not intended to generate respect or direct revenue.
Yet, he said that someone using the 'max' monthly budget of $300 for food, when making less that $26000, is part of the 'natural disrespect' continuum. Tell me, would you consider $300 a month on food excessive and disrespectful where you live?
$3.30 per meal, 3 times a day for 30.5 days?
The whole structure of his 'disrespect' argument is a lie to begin with. People on food stamps do respect the value of being able to feed their families.
Most Americans I've met see their need for food stamps as a moral stain. They want so badly to overcome their 'failure' by working even harder. Many will take second or third jobs with tenuous protections, and have their wages stolen ($2600 per person, on average, almost as much as food stamps pays).
Either way, productivity goes up, inflation marches on, wages stay the same, and I'm the only one getting richer.
Anywho that is why I replied in the manner I did, because the subtext was clearly hidden well enough for many people to need it pointed out.
You are not immune to propaganda, doubly so for the propaganda you don't notice.