Dear Ms. Amanda Clayton,
On behalf of rational minded Americans across the country I would like to thank you for fueling the arguments some folks use to justify cutting social programs, such as the Food Stamps programs.
We’ve all heard the stories of people buying groceries with Food Stamps then going out to the parking lot and loading them into their Escalade. And we’ve seen the picture of the woman on welfare sitting in front of her 80 inch TV. Rational minded people take these examples and understand that in aiding those that need aid there will be a few occurrences of greedy fucktards abusing the system. The smarter of us realize that the cost of investigating such abuses exceeds the costs of the abuses themselves.
However there are plenty of idiots out there who do not think things through and take one instance of evidence of abuse and hold it against all the recipients of public aid. Right now there are dozens of political campaigners preparing to use your image to promote platforms that wish to reduce the funding for such aid.
Since winning the lottery last year, the $1200 in Food Stamp Aid you’ve received will result in political concessions across America that will take food away from millions of children. In all likelihood this won’t result in too many of them actually starving to death, but odds are that as inflation increases the costs of food, we won’t see the Food Stamp programs receiving enough funding to keep up–all because you felt entitled to $1200 of public aid in addition to your half a million dollar windfall. I’m sure the media is skewing the story a little, but if you actually have two houses, it’s not possible that you need more money for food. You just want more money so you can have two houses.
The Escalade story is an urban legend, possibly true, I know three people who claim to have witnessed it personally. Since they work together, I’m not sure how personally that was. The Big TV story is slightly more documented, though most people have never seen anything resembling the original report. Most people know the Anti-Public Assistance satirical piece that went viral on the internet. There are other significant differences between Ms. Jasper of the TV story fame and you, Ms. Clayton. Section 8 is subsidized housing, meaning Ms. Jasper was still paying a big chunk of her income in rent. One television is not half a million dollars, but look at how much damage that one photograph has done to the public perception of assistance programs.
I believe in public assistance. I believe there is room to reform public assistance as well. However, I don’t support blindly cutting programs based on internet rumors and a few examples of abuse. But I am sadly not representative of everyone in the country. There will be enough idiots out there who will see you as the example of every welfare recipient. These idiots will control enough political sway to successfully argue against raising benefits when they will need to be raised. People will suffer. In an ideal world, we’d just be able to filter through the data of all the public assistance recipients and identify those who don’t really need it. It’s just not possible with the resources available. People, like you, Ms. Clayton, who take advantage of the government’s inability and unwillingness to check every detail of every person’s life, are amoral.
That half million dollars you were lucky enough to win won’t even cover a fraction of a percent of the reduction in benefits so many Americans will see over the years because of your greed. A quick glance at the history of lottery winners over the years tells me that, in less than three years, you will be back among those Americans needing public aid. Remember what that Bridge Card bought you last month. The next time you have one, it won’t buy as much.