Welfare Cheats

[joyliveshere]

There was this woman I met twice years ago at grad school parties, the friend of someone in my grad program. Both times I met her, she brought up the same topic -- people on food stamps who bought things with them that this woman didn't think they should buy. This was precipitated by an occasion -- one incident that this woman witnessed -- upon

Comments

[sageofgodalming]

Where's FDR when you need him?

[judyserenity]

She brought up this topic frequently? What a nut!

As someone who used to find grocery bargains for a (poorly paid) job, I'd point out that potato chips, candy, soda, and cake are often quite cheap, on a "cents per calorie" basis. I'd guess that most people on food stamps can't afford to buy much of the healthier foods, like fresh vegetables.

Another comment, after watching the Colbert video: Lawrence Summers says that legally,we can't take the bonuses away from AIG execs. So, how about this approach: We tell them, "sure, you're entitled to your bonus. But, if you accept it, we'll fire you."

[happy_potterer]

Or simply, "No more bailout money for you." By all accounts, they were going to ask for a few hundred more billion before the end of the year. Believe me, they'll shape up if those are the terms. They need to pay their taxes first too. And mow their lawn.

What kind of business puts automatic bonuses in their contract, without so much as a "no bonus if your department tanks and takes the company and the world economy with it" clause? And can I get a job there?

It's about time these people grew up and joined the real world. I'm glad even the Senate seems to think so.

Joy, I found the George Orwell passage this reminded me of. It is chapter 5 of The Road to Wigan Pier, and is online here.He says what everyone knows: when you're down and out, you don't want what's good for you. You want a little treat

[sageofgodalming]

What kind of business

I believe there are vacancies off the coast of Somalia.

[sageofgodalming]

I thought they were retention bonuses: that is, they were paid only if the staff stayed around. Which they didn't. But got the bonuses anyway. Anyway, firing them's no longer an option.

And yes, my reaction was "which of potato chips, candy, soda, and cake isn't food?" (Presumably the answer's soda, because it's a drink.) It also seems self-contradictory to criticise welfare dependency by offering to micro-manage the recipients' lives. If you want to take the view that people's mistakes should recoil exclusively on their own heads, then you'd surely think that allowing them to purchase, say, gravel, with food stamps was a good thing?