Millionaires Don't Need Food Stamps

It's always nice to hear when at least someone comes to their senses. In this case, the person coming to their senses is Attorney General Bill Schuette of Michigan. Mr. Schuette decided to press fraud charges against a one Amanda Clayton because after she won a million dollars in the state lottery, she continued to collect food stamps and public assistance. You got it. Wins a million dollars. Thinks she's entitled to food stamps because she "isn't working". Riiiiiight. Good for Mr. Schuette.

According to the New York Daily News, Ms. Clayton is "...accused of collecting $5,475 in food stamps and public medical benefits over eight months". Just let that sink in. She wins a million dollars (OK, a $735,000 lump sum as opposed to the million being paid out in installments) and continues collecting money from the state because she "isn't working". Benefits aren't based on JUST whether or not you're working, cupcake! You have money! You don't need assistance! It's right there in the name! Assistance!

But for some reason, there seem to be a lot of unnecessary questions or some confusion over this most excellent move by Mr. Schuette. Naturally, some of the opposition comes from Ms. Clayton's defense lawyer, a one Stanley Wise, who said "They want to make an example of her...She's offered to repay the money. They haven't even sent her a bill. If that were the only issue, it would be over and done. They have chosen to exploit this for their purposes, and we have to deal with it." Yeah, see, it doesn't work like that. When someone gets caught stealing like a laptop, it doesn't make it OK if they just give the laptop back and say, "My bad!" As far the whole making an example out of her, I say good! I'm just sad that people even need this sort of an example. ("Citizens, I'd like to give you an example of what not to do. For example, if you win a million dollars, do not continue to take food stamps when you are perfectly capable of buying your own food. For example.)

Her mother isn't exactly seeing this for how it is either. Euline Clayton said that "...her daughter used bad judgment but that a criminal case is "crap"." You see, ma'am, most criminals use bad judgment. That's part of the criminal code of conduct. (Rule One: You must use bad judgment, as good judgment will cause you to not commit crimes.) She also noted that "The charges "are very extreme. ... They arrested her like a vulture...She didn't steal $1 million." I don't understand any of that. Arrested her like a vulture? So they circled her until she died and then they feasted on her rotting carcass? I don't think that happened. And no one is saying that she stole a million dollars. She stole $5,475. That's plenty.

The article also mentions that when a one Joy Yearout, a Schuette spokeswoman was asked "...why the attorney general chose felony charges over a civil lawsuit or why Clayton was arrested and locked up overnight for a non-violent crime", she declined to comment. I really wish that Ms. Yearout had answered with something to the effect of "We chose felony charges because she committed a felony." Seems simple and straightforward enough to me. It was kind of a stupid question to begin with if you're asking me. As far as being locked up for a non-violent crime, it might shock people to learn that people get locked up for non-violent crimes all the time. If they weren't locked up, they probably wouldn't be considered "crimes", per se. I wish I knew who made that inquiry. I'd really like to give them the answers that they so sought.

I hope this chick goes down. Yep, that's right. I'm hoping that they make a nice big, fat example out of her and all of her non-violent crime which stole taxpayer money from its originally intended purpose. If you'd like to see a video of this little snowflake in action, here's an interview that she did when she was approached by a reporter. Get ready to be angry, though. Very angry.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Money!

So yesterday I showed you a video made by Alexandra Pelosi (and despite her mother, Nancy Pelosi, probably being related to the devil, Alexandra seems like a charming woman) where she went to the heart of Mississippi and gathered some opinions about Obama. As you might be able to imagine, the responses were not exactly favorable (or tooth filled, in at least one instance). And as promised yesterday, here is the flip side of that. Here is Alexandra Pelosi interviewing welfare recipients in New York and getting their opinions about Obama. As you might be able to imagine, the responses were certainly more favorable than those from the south. That doesn't mean that it's going to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling all over inside. No, it will probably do quite the opposite. Regardless, here's the video. (As always, if it doesn't show up or play, click here. Enjoy!

Sphere: Related Content

A Real Piece Of Work

I always think that I'm not going to be surprised by people. And then what happens? You guessed it. I get surprised. And in this case, my surprise turned to anger very quickly.



Let's meet a woman named Angel Adams. Ms. Adams lives somewhere in Florida (shocking, I know) with her twelve children. That's right. TWELVE. And technically, she has fifteen, but I guess she must have misplaced the other three because they don't live with her. Now, Ms. Adams doesn't have any job or any way to support herself. She had a baby daddy who managed to father ten of those children, but he was arrested and left her to fend for herself.



When I said "fend for herself" I meant that she was left to get all that she could out of all of the social service programs and welfare programs that she possibly could. That got a little tricky after she was evicted from her apartment for (wait for it) having twelve children in there with her. She ended up at a motel and that's where the news cameras caught up with her. Good thing, too. If they hadn't, we never would have been able to see the tantrum that she throws, as she is demanding that SOMEONE be responsible for her children. Wait. What now?



Correct. SOMEONE needs to pay. Her exact words were "Somebody needs to pay for alllllllllllll my children! And my and Gary, and all our suffering and our pain! Somebody needs to be held accountable! Somebody needs to pay!” Uh, OK. See, now my first question is "Shouldn't YOU be responsible?" But of course, the guy who was doing the story didn't ask her that. Why not? Because the media sucks, that's why. What else would explain a reporter not asking the most basic of questions?! (Another thing that we don't know? What the baby daddy was arrested for. Why don't we know? Because the media sucks. Now you're catching on! But I digress.)



This woman is one of the most delusional people that I have had the displeasure of learning about in a long time. FIFTEEN children. No job. Apparently no knowledge of modern methods of birth control. And not grateful enough that social services pays her rent and her utilities. OK, then. You really need to see this woman. Below is a montage of her various appearances on the local news. The really good stuff happens early on, though. Right around 1:50-ish is where it starts to get good.

Sphere: Related Content

He Shouldn't Be Using Food Stamps

Contrary to my tone and demeanor around here, there are very few people and/or things that I actually hate. Sure, I despise things. Many, many things annoy the holy hell out of me. But I don't hate a lot of things or a lot of people. This Leroy Fick guy in Michigan, though? Yeah, I might hate him.

Here's the story: Leroy won $2 million dollars in a Michigan state lottery game called "Make Me Rich". Interestingly, the show is hosted by Peter Knight who played Peter on "The Brady Bunch". Good to know that he could find work. But back to Mr. Fick. You know. The guy I might hate? Yeah, him.

After Mr. Fick won his two million dollars, it appears that he was given the option of having it paid to him in installments (which usually are spread out over a ridiculous number of years, like 20) or taking the lump sum payment. He took the lump sum payment. Now, while you get a big pile of cash all at once, they do take out a boat load of taxes. It ends up being right around half. So, Mr. Fick still won about a million dollars. He's a millionaire. On food stamps. Wait a minute. He what?

That's right. He still uses food stamps. According to WNEM, there is some sort of idiotic loophole in the federal regulations that are used to determine who is eligible to receive food stamps. For reasons which I cannot even begin to fathom, the system does not take into account your liquid assets when you are applying for aid. Soooo...they don't ask you if you have any money to spend? Thus, if you have money, it doesn't matter because they don't ask you that? What in the hell are the requirements based on? With that low of a standard, I can't imagine that ANYONE would not qualify. Who's idea was THAT?!

He's not breaking any laws by doing what he's doing. He's just a jackass, that's all. A rich jackass who doesn't want to pay for his own food even though he is perfectly able to pay for his own food. And he apparently doesn't care, as he told the reporter guy, "Well, I think it's fair because of the way that they took the taxes." They're supposed to take out taxes, you moron! That's how the system works! Just because they take taxes out doesn't mean that you don't have to pay for your own food when you have the means to do so! He also thinks that using the food stamps instead of his own money is the "prudent" thing to do. Uh, listen here, sir. If you were so worried about being "prudent" with your money, you shouldn't have been spending the pittance that you did have every month on the freaking lottery! Playing the lottery is the absolute opposite of freaking prudent!


The reporter who spoke to this asshat continues to probe into what other services Mr. Fick receives a(s someone who has about a million dollars) and Mr. Fick tells him that he is also on disability. (I could say that he looks like he's fine, but I know that there are things that can be wrong with a person that you can't see. For example, this guy has the moral compass of a jackrabbit in heat. You can't just tell that simply by looking at the guy.) And from his point of view, he thinks that all of this is ethical.

The reporter asks him what he thinks that a single mother with two jobs and working eighty hours a week would think about him and all of his money collecting from social services that are offered.
"If you're going to sit there and try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it. It ain't gonna happen. So you might as well just ship on out. Goodbye." Do you hate him yet? Because I'm pretty sure that I do.

If this guy is able to totally take advantage of this system with as much money as he has, you know that there are others doing it. The country is going freaking broke and yet we have a system that allows for loopholes like this one. The guy drives a convertible Audi and is on freaking food stamps! We are so effing screwed and doomed. We're scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Welfare on the High Seas

If you don't live in the state of California, should you be concerned about what is going on over here? I'm thinking that you should. I say that because this state is going to go broke and it is the rest of the country that is going to end up bailing out this failed experiment at trying to create a utopia. And when you hear of some of the reasons that contribute to the state going broke and then you learn that nothing is being done about them, you're going to be angry that your taxes will (likely) go up to help straighten out this fuster cluck at some point in the future.

Let's take a look at a situation that makes me so angry that I want to take all of my money out of the banks and bury it in the backyard of my walled off compound so that no one else can piss it away like they are. According to an awesome story by the fine folks over there at the LA Times, you will be shocked, simply shocked, to learn that between January 2007 and May 2010, "More than $69 million in California welfare money...has been spent or withdrawn outside the state in recent years, including millions in Las Vegas, hundreds of thousands in Hawaii and thousands on cruise ships sailing from Miami." Um...wuck?

That's right. Folks on welfare spending their benefits in Vegas, Hawaii and on freaking cruise ships?! Are you dry shaving me?! What the WHAT?! OK. Calm down. Calm. Down. Breathe. Breathe deeper. OK. Now...let's look at what the benefits were spent on and maybe that will shed some light on this that won't make it seem quite so bad, shall we? Sure. Great idea. It can't be as outright fraudulent as it sounds...can it? CAN IT?! Why aren't you answering me?!

Because you know if you answer me, I'm going to have a stroke. Let's see...in Hawaii, we have folks spending MY money by dropping "...$12,433 spent at the upscale Ala Moana shopping center, $3,030 spent at a group of gift shops next to Jimmy Buffett's Beachcomber restaurant on Waikiki Beach and $2,146 withdrawn from ATMs on the island of Lanai, home to a pair of Four Seasons resorts and little else." Breathe, Mare. Breathe....

What else? Oh, Vegas! Vegas took in almost $12 million of taxpayer money in benefits. What was that spent on? Well, there was "...more than $1 million was spent or withdrawn at shops and casino hotels on, or within a few blocks of, the 4.5-mile strip. The list includes $8,968 at the Tropicana, $7,995 at the Venetian and its Grand Canal Shoppes, and $1,332 at Tix 4 Tonight, seller of discount admission for such acts as Cirque du Soleil." Breathe, dammit. Seriously, I don't know if I can take much more. What else is there? "The data also show $16,010 withdrawn from 14 cruise ships sailing from ports around the world — Long Beach, Rio de Janeiro, Beijing. Eight sail primarily from Miami." That's IT!! I've had it!

CRUISE SHIPS?! For those on WELFARE?! Now, now. Calm down. Let's listen to an alleged voice of reason on this whole matter. Let's turn to a legislative advocate for the Western Center on Law and Poverty, a one Jessica Bartholow, who tells us, "I think when somebody hears it's in a fancy hotel in Hawaii or Vegas, it's too easy to assume the [welfare recipient] is visiting that place and it wasn't somebody who stole their card." ::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Are you freaking kidding me?! YES! Yes, that is EXACTLY what we think! We do NOT think that their card was stolen! That is correct! We KNOW that we, the taxpayers, are getting screwed! And now we KNOW that we, the taxpayers, are getting screwed with the help of Jessica Bartholow and her Center for Sending the Impoverished to Hawaii!! See, this is why you have to believe in God because otherwise, you wouldn't get the pleasure of believing that these folks will go to hell one day.

But what about others in California? Aren't there folks whose job it is to track down this sort of abuse? Of course there are, silly. But, as explained by a one John Haley who is the commander of the financial crimes division of the San Diego County DA's office, "...If it's a one-time thing in Miami, we would never check that out...We look for patterns of abuse." WHAT?! If you are in California and you are ON WELFARE, ANY time in Miami should be checked out! How the hell did you get there and why did you take MY money with you?! Is it because this sort of thing is rare? Uh, well....not exactly. See, Mr. Haley also told the LA Times that "...24% of all new welfare applications in his jurisdiction contain some form of fraud." One in four. But they're never going to catch you if you don't repeatedly go to Miami?! What in the hell kind of a system is THAT?!

Is it just in San Diego? It's not everywhere, is it? IS IT?! Well, um...see...it's like this..."A state audit last year found that none of California's 58 counties was adequately following up on information that could help root out fraud, including monthly computer matches that list clients who are receiving duplicate aid from other states, those who are ineligible because they're in prison and others who have died." Holy. S***.

Remember this when you hear that California has gone bankrupt and your Federal taxes are going to increase to help bail out this mess. And the next time you're going to work, remember that welfare recipients on the public dole are going to Hawaii and Vegas. And finally, remember that constructing a walled off compound is never a bad idea and it's never too late to start.

Sphere: Related Content

Illegal Immigrant Thinks We Owe Her

The twisted logic that people use when it comes to illegal immigration always amazes me. And I mean always. It also really confuses me as to how "illegal immigration" seems to be so easily confused with "immigration" when the folks who seem to favor illegal immigration try and paint people who don't favor it as simply "anti-immigration". But I think that might be simply because some folks seem to not define "illegal" in the traditional sense. You know. That of it actually being not legal.

Let's look at an instance of that. Let's look at the instance of a one Zeituni Onyango. (You can pronounce that however you'd like.) I should probably point out that why you're hearing what she thinks of the whole illegal immigration issue is twofold. Fold one: She is in this country illegally. Fold two: She is the aunt of President Barry. Frankly, it's the first point that is more important than the second one. The second one is kind of a little trivia nugget more than anything. But I'm sure you still want to know what she has to say...or something like that.

Ms. Onyango came here in 2000 from Kenya and, according to AOL News, "...fell ill and was hospitalized." Aww. Well, these things happen. But then, "Upon her release...she was out of money. So rather than return to her homeland, she continued to live in the country in violation of immigration laws." Umm, OK. Yeah, those things happen, too. But they shouldn't. But what was she going to do? She was out of money, for cryin' out loud! Does Kenya give people money when they don't have any? I don't know if they do, but I could think of several reasons why they wouldn't or why they don't.

Now, in a sane society, one would think that if you're out of money, that's going to be a problem, especially if you're from another land. But not here in the good ol' US of A! Nope. Not a problem at all! See, "After stints in a Boston homeless shelter, Onyango was eventually put in public housing and began receiving disability payments." Hmm. Disability payments. Don't those come out of Social Security? Hmm. Aren't most folks expected to pay into that before they draw on it? Technically, yes. Actually, theoretically, yes. And people wonder why it's going broke. Duh.

Her story continues with us learning that "In 2004, an immigration judge ordered her to leave the country, but Onyango remained. However, she noted that her story was less about intentionally flouting federal immigration policy and more about its ineffectiveness. "I didn't take advantage of the system...The system took advantage of me." Uh, wait. What now? The system took advantage of HER?! How in the hell did the system take advantage of HER?! The system told her to leave! That's not taking advantage of her! That's booting her out! She stayed! How is it not her taking advantage of the system? HOW?! Of course, she doesn't elaborate on that.

But what she did elaborate on sent me over the proverbial edge. She said that "...she's done nothing wrong by illegally living in the United States for years and is therefore deserving of amnesty. "If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen." What the what now?

So, in her book, "illegal" doesn't mean "doing something wrong". It means "the system is taking advantage of you"? Where in the hell does she come up with that logic? And since when is any country obligated to a citizen from another country for anything?! I'm pretty sure there isn't any obligation here (other than on her part to get out). And finally, you delusional woman, you didn't come as an immigrant. You were living here illegally. You weren't an immigrant. You were an illegal resident! There's a difference! Why does everyone keep overlooking the difference between "an immigrant" and "an illegal immigrant"?! They're different, for cryin' out loud!

Wow. This is what it's come to? Really? People that don't have any legal right to be here thinking that they are owed something by this country simply because they are here? Really? Wow. I suppose that I should end this by mentioning that Ms. Unpronounceable was granted asylum earlier this year by the same judge that denied her asylum in 2004. (Gee. I wonder why that was? Hmm.) I should probably also mention that she still lives in public housing and still collects $700 per month in disability. She's never paid into the system and she's totally getting her entire lifestyle paid for out of the system. Sure, that seems reasonable. No, I can't see why that would be a problem in the long run. Or in any run. Good Lord, people....

Sphere: Related Content

Casino Benefits For Welfare Recipients

I don't get up every morning just looking to brand someone a moron. I certainly don't get up every morning hoping that I can find someone to outright despise because of what they stand for and how they're going to contribute to the fall of society as we know it. It's not like I'm trying to be annoyed. But when I find out that in "California and Michigan, welfare recipients have been using their Electronic Benefit Transfer cards to withdraw state-funded payment from ATM machines in casinos", I tend to get a little testy.

According to something called Daily Finance, this absurdity that should not be occurring has been surprisingly recognized by politicians who (theoretically) can do something about it like make it so that the ATM machines in the casinos are programmed to not accept the EBT cards (which work like an ATM card does). And look, I realize that someone that is going to spend their money...oh, wait. I said that wrong, didn't I? I realize that someone that is really wants to spend MY money at a casino is going to. They're going to go to some other ATM, withdraw money that my taxes have funded, and then hop their sorry ass to a casino and piss away my money. I get that. But I don't think that the process needs to be made any easier by having the damn ATM AT the freaking casino be capable of giving them MY money.

In California, the surprisingly on the ball Los Angeles Times learned that "...79 out of the 148 tribal casinos and state-licensed poker rooms have welfare-friendly (aka, MY money friendly) ATM machines on the premises." That's over half. Not to mention that it's about 79 too many. And if you're thinking that maybe not a lot of people actually take advantage of this situation, you'd be wrong because "$1.8 million in state welfare revenues were withdrawn from ATMs in gambling establishments over an eight month period." Nice system, California. Whose freaking idea was this to begin with?

Now, you'd think that everyone would be able to be on the same page with getting something like this stopped, wouldn't you? You might think that, but again, you'd be wrong. And that brings me to the woman that I spent today simply loathing. A one Maureen Taylor is the state organizer of the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization advocacy group (that's in Michgian). She has a problem with a bill that was introduced by Michigan Senator Bill Hardiman which would "...stop casino ATMs in his state from processing welfare payments." You know what the problem is that she has? Guess. Go on. Guess. You know what? It's so asininely ridiculous, you'll never get it. So, allow me...

Ms. Taylor "...feels that Hardiman's bill singles out welfare recipients unfairly." What? Singles them out? Well, yes. That's what it's supposed to do. You can't not single out a group that is already singled out. If you want to stop casino ATMs from processing welfare payments, that is automatically going to single out the group of people that are on welfare, that is correct. So, what is the problem that Ms. Taylor finds with this intentional and necessary singling out? She claims, "This is a way to corral low-income welfare recipients, put a red mark on their face and say, 'You're not welcome.' " ::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Um, Ms. Taylor? Yeah, see, that's right! They're NOT welcome to take MY money and go spend it at a CASINO! They're on freaking WELFARE! They shouldn't HAVE any money to spend at a casino! If they did, they wouldn't be on WELFARE! What part of that do you not understand? It's not like we're trying to stop them from spending their money at a grocery store! It's a G-D casino, for cryin' out loud!

I'm glad that Ms. Taylor isn't in politics because that would be cause for alarm. I have no idea what the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization does exactly, but the fact that they use the word "Rights" in their title does not bode well with me. How come there is a "right" to be on welfare, but there isn't a "right" for those of us who pay for it to opt out? Oh, that's right. Because all of us would, that's why. I really wish that she had elaborated on that statement, but she didn't. And in a way, I think I'm glad. I don't know if I could have taken her explanation without needing an entire bottle of gin.

Side note: Against my better judgment, I went to the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization website to see what they were all about. I got as far as what is apparently their mission statement: "You get what you are organized to take!" I couldn't read any more after that, as I kind of think that says it all, don't you? Now, where did I put that gin?

Sphere: Related Content

No More Funds For Fatties

For all of you who reside in the US and are just in love with all of these taxpayer subsidized programs that President Barry is enacting, you'd better slow down and check yourselves just to double check to think about whether they're really a good idea or not. After all, when people start to just be handed things without any effort on their part, they become a people that I don't think having an entire country full of would be of any great benefit. I don't even think it would be of any small benefit. The only benefit I see coming out of President Barry's social programs is that the programs will give us plenty of examples of what not to do in the future should the notion ever come up again that some people should be handed everything in their lives. It doesn't end well. Just take a gander over at the UK there to see what I'm talking about.

For instance, let's look at a one 25-year old Laura Ripley who lives somewhere in the UK. According to the Daily Mail, Ms. Ripley is unemployed and overweight. The unemployed moniker is probably a stretch though, as she has never worked in her quarter of a century on this planet. And the overweight moniker could be worse, as she used to weigh 38 stone (one stone = 14 pounds. I don't know why they go with "stone". Probably because they use "pound" for their currency and would be getting the two different pounds mixed up all of the time.) and now she weighs a mere 22 stone. I'll do the math for you so that you can be shocked that she used to weigh a whopping 532 pounds and now is down to a comparatively speaking svelte 308 pounds. Still a large gal, yes. See for yourself. Behold!

Definitely tough to knock over. But I digress. Anyway, she is, of course, on the British version of welfare because she's (wait for it) too fat to work. Well, she was too fat to work...until the British government paid for gastric band surgery and she lost 224 pounds! Fabulous! Now she can work, right? Not so fast. See, part of the money that she was receiving from the government was disability money because she's what? Too fat to work, that is correct. But when you drop off 224 pounds and you end up weighing only 308, you're still linebacker material, no getting around that fact, but you're not the entire defensive line anymore, so I'd call that progress! And so does the British government. And it's just the kind of progress that they were hoping for when they were the ones that footed the bill for her gastric bypass surgery! (That's quite a system you've got going over there, Britain. Quite a system indeed.) Here's why they offered it to her. Behold!

Because of all of the weight losing, Ms. Ripley no longer gets the money that she used to receive for being what? Too fat to work, that's right! And she is now...what? Bitching about it, correct! Because when fat, one receives £600 a month in benefits, but when one gets rid of some fat then they lose about £340 a month. (Now here's where the British pound comes in. Again, different from the US pound and when converted we learn she was receiving $984.78 a month in benefits and is no longer eligible for the $558.02 of "too fat to work money". (I'm paraphrasing there, of course. I don't think that's really what they call it. It'd be a good name for it if they needed one, though.)

Now that loss of free and effortless income really is tough for some people. I think that the degree of entitlement is directly proportional to the degree of irrationality of the complaint of the hardship. Both of those factors are in direct proportion to how much other people cannot stand this sort of person. According to Ms. Ripley, "'Without my disability allowance I'm left with just £210 ($344.67) incapacity benefit which I get because of my depression, and £100 ($164.13) income support I receive every two weeks and out of that I have to give them back £70 ($114.89) towards the cost of the £500-a-month ($820.65) flat I'm living in." Seriously, does she say this with a straight face?

Listen up, buttercup. You're paying 14% of what your rent actually is, yet living in 100% of the flat. And even though you're paying that 14%, technically you're not even doing that because you're not working and that money is being given to you by your government! You're 25 years old there, honeybabe, and you've never worked a day in your life? And you're complaining about this arrangement? Is this ALL you're complaining about?

Sadly, no. See, now that she doesn't get as much free fat money, "This means she cannot afford to eat healthily - causing her to pile the weight back on." Wait. What? Can't afford it? What does she do? Glad you asked! "'I can't afford to buy Weight Watchers crisps and cereal bars any more so I eat Tesco's chocolate bars and packets of Space Invaders crisps, sometimes four of each a day', says Laura, who spends seven hours a day watching TV." Oh. My. God.

No! No! Hold that thought! There's more! See, before when she was getting the Funds for Fatties, that "...was spent on gym workouts, healthy food and having her hair highlighted." Because having highlighted hair really slims a person down, is that it? I don't think it is! See, this is what happens when people spend other people's money. They don't CARE what they spend it on because it's not theirs and they didn't have to EARN it. And they can always make justifications for why they do what they do with money that they don't have to earn. Sort of like how she explains her food choices by saying "'People ask why I don't snack on an apple - they're cheap, but emotionally I don't always feel like an apple." Um, what now?

That's why she eats crap. It's not that she can't pay for it, it's that she doesn't want to. Essentially, she's throwing a tantrum because her Funds for Fatties were discontinued. Oh, sure, she could go and get a job, but she's holding off on that because she'd like to get a tummy tuck-like operation "which would normally cost £12,000, to remove the saggy skin left behind after the dramatic weight loss, but only if she sheds a further five stone." Well, clearly, that isn't going to happen if she's all out of free money! Five stone..what is that? Seventy pounds? She just gained fourteen pounds over the past three weeks! I don't think that five stone is going to just melt off of her! But that's why she's not looking for a job to supplement her income.

Hold on. What?

Right. She's not looking for a job. Even though she's been deemed "fit to work" (and really, you'd have to be Manuel Uribe, the World's Fattest Man, at the very least in order to actually be too fat to work) and she needs the money, she's not looking because "'I'm not even applying for work at the moment because I'm only going to have to have lots of time off when I have more surgery." But you're not having any surgery until you lose another seventy pounds there, Einstein! Even if you lost a miraculous 5 pounds a week, that's fourteen weeks you're going to have until they can get you all tucked in again. MINIMUM fourteen weeks, but that's totally unrealistic, so it would be at least double that, I'm guessing. Still, that's 28 weeks. Can a person drop 70 pounds in about 7 months? Maybe, but not eating chocolate bars and chips all the live long day they can't.

But here's the best part. Here is where I completely twisted off. It's not like she's happy with this situation. No, it saddens her, as evidenced by this statement: 'It's heartbreaking that after all my hard work losing this weight someone's come along and ruined it."

Sooooooooo....by someone do you mean you?! You're the only one doing the eatin' over there! You're the only one watching seven hours of TV a day. (My God, seven hours? I'd shoot myself first.) You're the one not exercising and eating crap. If that's what you mean, then, yes, it is a shame that someone decided to choose to sabotage all of the work that had been done up until this point. See, if you had paid for that gastric bypass yourself, you would have felt like you made some sort of an investment in the whole deal. After all, if you're spending that kind of money on something, you wouldn't want it to be for nothing or to go to waste because you ballooned up like it was Super Bowl time and someone ordered up the Goodyear Blimp. But hey! You didn't spend the money, so what do you care if you end up as big as a house again? Not a bit. Nope. Don't care a bit.

Her parting plea for more free money really summed up how this woman looks at the world and what she feels that it is obligated to give to her. "I sometimes feel guilty about all the taxpayers' money that's been spent on me but I only want an extra £100 a month, that's all." I don't think that's guilt you're feeling. I think those are hunger pains. Oh, wait a minute. No they're not! Never mind, scratch that. But it still isn't guilt that you're feeling there, cupcake. (Mmmmm...cupcakes.)

That "extra £100 a month" that you want is (and pay attention here) SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY! Someone else had to get up and go to work all day, every day whilst you sat at home in your flat which is heavily subsidized (sort of like you are!) and watched TV! Tell you what...you go out and find someone who works a full time job and then explain to them that you don't want to work but you do want them to give you £100 a month from their paycheck and see how well that goes over.

Talk about a 'Fail Whale'.

Sphere: Related Content