Well, here’s how we do it over on this side of the pond. You get £X per week as determined by the laws. Once you have received your money, it is no-one’s freakin’ business what you spend it on. If you spend it all on hookers and blow, you don’t get to go back to the government office and ask for more. So you go hungry and your light and heat gets cut off.
It’s a reasonable approach.
I like that you think of it this way, it’s heartwarming. 
And, when it’s not even actual money, but EBT or whatever, you think even less about budgeting. That’s actually one of the strongest arguments for paying benefits as cash - the recipient needs to budget. As things stand, I’d WAG that many welfare recipients in the US spend a whole lot of time trying to figure out ways to pay for things that are essential but aren’t food.
I mean, presumably we’re OK with the poor having tampons and toilet paper, yes?
Yes, Master. I should only be able to buy gruel.
Y’know, I could have sworn that I budgeted very, very, carefully. But, if Master says otherwise, I must be wrong.
If someone who pays for everything without government assistance cannot afford it, then why should you be able to buy it with someone else’s money if the people whose money it is cannot even afford it?
You’re projecting your own prejudices or fears onto the other posters. Most of us (even apples) are saying exactly the opposite here.
What we’re saying is:
How hard is this to understand?
Are you going to keep substituting, “Yes, Master” for everything when you can’t come up with a coherent response?
That’s funny because that is not what I’m seeing at all. I’m seeing people being disdainful of other’s life because they’re on public assistance. I’m seeing people advocating telling others how to spend money and denying them benefits because they have a pearl necklace and a fur coat.
People who game the system should be punished as I have said over and over again. People who use the system and buy lobster shouldn’t-- no matter how much it gets apple’s goat.
I could have sworn I was giving coherent responses.
I could have sworn that Apples position was based on lack of information, errors, and anger.
But, if Master says otherwise, I guess I was wrong.
I think what you’re seeing is a result of your own hangups.
Of course it is. Nobody said their cousin was a welfare cheat without evidence. No one said poor kids in the ghetto got assistance even though they had nice clothes and gaming systems. No one said that they saw people using food stamps to buy lobster and that was wrong. It’s just little ole me and my hang-ups.
I can’t argue with irrational emotions.
An example from another site that illustrates my point;
"I have also seen people get $800+ in food stamps, and then buy several hundred dollars worth of entertainment products with cash. If you have $60 for an X-box game, then you can afford to buy $60 worth of groceries with cash and not food stamps. "
No, it’s illustrated that you or someone else can type up a story with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
What site? Again-- anecdote is not data.
Wait, here’s a quote from this site I go to:
“I have seen poor people take their last food stamp and give it to a homeless person. This touched my heart so much, I think we should up everyone’s benefits by 10%.”
Now there’s an example of what I’m talking about.
Anecdotes again? But OK, if someone routinely spends a small fortune on XBox games, you have to wonder if they have an undeclared income source or something like that. And if they do, that’s fraud, and you have every right to complain.
But people spending their own money as they see fit? You know nothing of their circumstances, and it really isn’t any of your business anyway. As I said upthread, I presume they don’t get to go back to the welfare office and say “Uh, I spent all my money, can I have some more?”
Of course you can’t. I am irrational and made everything in that post up. People reading this thread will see how irrational and emotional I am. While you are speaking from a point of calmness. There is no anger from you towards those poor children. You are not bitter about not getting assistance when you needed it.
I posted no facts. I spoke only in hearsay. Uyup.
Read the comments here… it is similar to the debate here and there are both sides represented.
http://thecollegeconservative.com/2011/12/13/my-time-at-walmart-why-we-need-serious-welfare-reform/
So what are you proposing the government should do to prevent people from owning an X-Box and buying candy with food stamps? 40 million people are on food stamps, so you are going to have to create a pretty sizable bureaucracy to investigate them with the level of scrutiny you are demanding, to decide which ones own fur coats and pearl necklaces. Sounds like a huge deficit busting boondoggle, especially when you admit we have no idea if this is even a big enough problem to justify such a huge federal enforcement agency.
So now you’ve linked to a blog where someone’s told a story. Good for them.
You still haven’t proven any of these instances have actually happened, with actual evidence.
Edit: Also, an example of “Entitlement” in that story was a woman trying to buy FRESH VEGETABLES (peppers) and having them show up as “Not Food” and when she got (IMO reasonably) upset that fresh vegetables are qualified as “not food” then that’s an example of “entitlement”?