To the editor:
What a relief to see our elected officials finally getting tough on the aid recipients who spent 0.002% of last year’s welfare funds on underwear (“Pol gets tough on welfare abuse“, Feb. 15).
How dare these women buy high-quality, inexpensive undergarments from Victoria’s Secret? Wal-Mart should be perfectly fine for poor people. Or maybe they should make do without underwear; if beggars wandering the streets half-naked in rags was good enough for our ancestors, it should be good enough for us.
It’s even more outrageous that some of these women are shopping at outlet stores. If they’re going to use taxpayer money on underwear, the least they could do is pay full price.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Kamens
On the other hand, when you see people who receive aid spending it all on liquor an non-essentials, it’s kind of infuruating. I have seen it way too many times. There are so many abuses in the system. If you can’t feed your family, buy something of nutritional value, and put down the booze.
The principal “non-essential” EBT purchase mentioned in the article was money spent at liquor stores, which makes me wonder:
(1) Did these guardians of the public purse confirm that this wasted money was spent ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES at liquor stores? The package store around the corner from me sells chips and peanuts, too.
(2) Is it really such a scandal for someone on welfare to drink booze once in a while? From a nutritional point of view, is there that much difference between Budweiser and Coca-Cola?
You’ve got it all wrong.
Poor people are all drunks.
Poor people shouldn’t be allowed to drink alcoholic beverages, regardless of where the money to buy them comes from. They should be suffering from their poverty, dammit, and they’re not entitled to spend any money at all to relieve the grinding tedium of their sad, impoverished lives.