“Self-entitled ungratereful fuckoff”


I was called such just yesterday because I wouldn’t specifically “show some gratitude” for this person’s ‘gift’ of my public assistance. That was their goodbye after constant demands that I say ‘thank you’ and showed ‘gratitude’.


In my typical style, I informed him just what I was going to show:

Show My Ass

…and the conversation further deteriorated from there, leading to the above huffy departure.

One can only be dehumanized but for so long before politeness goes right out the fucking window, and as I’ve warned my compatriots here at Orbit, I have no professional face.

And yes, expecting a ‘thank you’ from folks on welfare for the pittance part of your taxes that goes to us is pretty damned entitled, so holy pot and kettle and shit.

In light of the article I posted two days ago and this current POS from some shithead from Alabama who thinks welfare recipients shouldn’t have a car, but should somehow be able to get to work, I have only one thing to say to those who feel that we on public assistance should allow such limitations to our person in gratitude for even getting the “gift” assistance.

Do you understand now?

If I give you a sweater as a gift, I don’t get to also tell you how to wear it, when to wear it, and what to wear it with. It’s a fucking gift, once it hits your hands, it’s yours to do with as you will.

If my $380 is a ‘gift’, then you don’t get to say shit about what I do with it. You don’t give a homeless person $5 and then watch them go to the coffee shop to get a cuppa or some food.  Once you give someone money, unless there is an assumption of some sort of contract, you can take your opinions about how it’s spent and shove it.

These laws limiting how people can use the cash part of their assistance, and what food they can buy with their SNAP, are bullshit. It’s treating people who are already down on their luck like wayward children who are bad at money.  I know I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating because I keep running into total douchejacks who treat their tax money the same way Gollum treated the goddamn One Ring.

We are people. We are human.  We have needs like everyone else. We have needs for leisure, recreation, fun in our lives too. Once that money hits our cards, it’s ours to spend. Are some on PA bad with money and make shit decisions? Yeah, but so do people who get paychecks, and I don’t see any initiative for their bosses to tell them exactly what to do with that money.

For fuck’s sake, we don’t get much in the first place.  Unless we have a legally listed reason, we can only get assistance 36 months in total IN A LIFETIME. Life sucks too much under PA, and these assholes not only want our tongue up their asses in gratitude, but to allow lawmakers to chip away at what we’re already get.

It’s enough to make a person just a little…cranky.


No, taxpayers, my mouth is too busy trying to educate about how poverty actually works in America, to kiss your ass and grovel.  I’m poor.  I am not LESS than you. If I decide to spend my $200 in non-food money on a MAC makeup shopping spree, it’s mine to do so.  The penalty of not having money for bus fare, pads, lotion, hair moisturizer, etc. is my penalty to suffer.  NOT YOURS. If I use my $180 SNAP allotment on pricey steaks and seafood, then the penalty is not having money for eggs and milk and cereal and avocados (yes, I buy avocados. Bite me). NOT YOURS.

Natural consequences are enough, we don’t need laws limiting our access to punish us, fuck you very much.

As for attempting to shove us into jobs by shoving us out of welfare, it’s the ultimate in ignorant cruelty. I’ve mentioned already that as long as we have an unemployment rate above 0%, we will need public assistance. As long as day care costs more than what some can make in a year working, we will need public assistance. When you make it more difficult to get and keep welfare, you’re not forcing people to choose work, you’re resigning people to hunger and homelessness (AND THEIR CHILDREN, but fuck them, right?). The vast majority of people aren’t on welfare because they don’t want to work; they’re on it because they can’t make ends meet.

But as long as the “lazy lifetime” welfare stereotype persists, as long as people share stories that their brother’s cousin’s hairdresser’s nephew’s husband saw someone with a smartphone and an Escalade buy lobster with an EBT card, as long as the general public refuses to educate themselves on how poorer folk actually live (AND UPDATE THEIR FUCKING INFO, FUCK!), then laws like these will continue to be proposed and passed.

Because, everyone say it with me: “Poor people aren’t people”.

Whew, I want to not talk about this for a little while, and after that long FB fight, I need something to make me feel better. Oh Xiumin?

Much, much better
Much, much better, you beautiful creature


“Self-entitled ungratereful fuckoff”
The Orbit is still fighting a SLAPP suit! Help defend freedom of speech, click here to find out more and donate!

28 thoughts on ““Self-entitled ungratereful fuckoff”

  1. 1

    “self-entitled” is some sort of word failure. everyone is entitled to their own self, that doesn’t work as an insult or a descriptor of a negative quality.

  2. 2

    also: fuck people for wanting gratitude, as if they voluntarily gave you something at great cost to themselves. for one fuckers would stop paying taxes in an instant if they could. for two, disability and welfare aren’t hurting his way of life any.

      1. Hey Niki, keep up the good work. The Liberal party here in Canada is studying the idea of a minimum income for everybody. We would remove welfare, old age security, unemployment insurance etc. It would provide for a basic about $1700.00 per month for adults and around $600.00 per month for children with no strings attached. I’m a member of the Liberal party and I’m doing everything that I can to make it happen.

  3. 3

    I saw that thread, Niki. What a piece of shit that douche is. I’m sorry that crap gets leveled at you; no one deserves it, least of all you. <3

    Are some on PA bad with money and make shit decisions? Yeah, but so do people who get paychecks, and I don’t see any initiative for their bosses to tell them exactly what to do with that money.

    Except for denying women employees birth control benefits, of course. It just occurs to me this is the same despicable impulse, no doubt coming from the exact same despicable assholes.

  4. 4

    I can tell I’m going to be reading here a lot! One thing though. “Flounce” is often used in a very homophobic context and is honestly sexist, as it means “a real man” (whatever that means!) wouldn’t behave in such an “unmanly” way. Language like that makes the blog less inclusive. Maybe instead you could say “he left in a huff” or something like that?

  5. 5

    #3 Iris

    Except for denying women employees birth control benefits, of course””

    Gender essentialism and transphobic as fuck. Men need birth control too and there are women who cannot get pregnant because they were not born with a uterus.

    To avoid sounding so transphobic in the future, please use the phrases:

    “People with uterus”
    “People with penis”
    “People who can get pregnant”
    “People who can’t get pregnant”

    And so on.

    Great post Niki. I admire your activism.

  6. 6

    ”Flounce” is often used in a very homophobic context and is honestly sexist, as it means “a real man” (whatever that means!) wouldn’t behave in such an “unmanly” way.

    ‘Get bent’ has homophobic connotations too.

  7. 7

    I think of everything in math terms, so my question is that assuming that there is gratitude owed, how much goes to any single random asshat taxpayer from each person who supposedly owes this gratitude? Figure out what percentage of the total federal budget goes to the specific aid you get, then divide off that percentage of the random asshat’s federal tax payment. Divide that by the number of people receiving these payments, and that’s how much gratitude you owe. I’m guessing it doesn’t come out to a penny a decade worth of gratitude you owe this creep, and much less than the apology he owes all of us AND his teachers for squandering his education.

  8. 9

    When we pay taxes, it is not supposed to be connected to the gratitude of anyone, other than the gratitude of we taxpayers who are grateful to live in a civilized society. Taxes are the price of a civilized society, and that’s it. As a taxpayer, I expect PA recipients to try to live a slightly less desperate life, even though in the USA we don’t provide enough to ensure that. It is up to each recipient to manage their own resources and to figure out for themselves what is most appropriate for their specific needs at that specific time. Because this is America, and that’s how we roll. It might be nice to make available some free financial counseling, and some locations do that. But we can’t require it, in part because it would be expensive to provide, and in part because it’s none of our business, and in part because people on PA might have much better info than a civil servant on the financial realities faced here. Also, all sorts of people have medical, mortgage, or other reasons to need PA, and some of them might actually be financial planners themselves.
    If we wanted to make it highly likely that PA money were spent mainly on the most nutritious and cost-effective foods, our society could choose to change and start subsidizing those foods in the stores for everyone, which we don’t do. Because America. Instead, we subsidize things made with high fructose corn syrup, even if they’re bad for you, because Congress loves corn farmers in Iowa where they have the first caucus every four years. It’s another example where money in politics distorts how we decide to run things.
    If the complainers would complain about corporate money in elections, they might have some validity. But instead, they are usually the ones supporting the people,who keep everyone eating syrup. So if they don’t like what they see in other people’s carts, they should simultaneously shut up and blame themselves, not blame decent people trying to make society better. Decent people here includes both taxpayers and people getting PA, or both, but does not necessarily include people who criticize others unfairly.

  9. 10

    I have to wonder if the people demanding gratitude make the same demand to banks and other corporations who get tax breaks and/or bail outs. Probably not.

  10. 11

    total douchejacks who treat their tax money the same way Gollum treated the goddamn One Ring.

    Though, considering how that ended, it’s an intriguing thought

  11. 12

    Wow. That person is a complete asshole.
    We need jobs that pay a living wage, we need government paid (or at least assisted) childcare, we need socialized medicine, and we need a strong safety net in place for the people that will still fall through the cracks so that they can live with some basic dignity, security, and humanity. Also, the idea that America is this pure meritocracy needs to die in a fucking fire, ASAP.
    But no, instead of working toward goals that would lift us all up, lets bully, berate and dehumanize people on Twitter… because if you could make just one poor person lick your boot then maybe we could “Make America Great Again”?
    Fuck. That.

  12. 13

    I can so relate. The last time I had to rely on public assistance or “choose” to freeze/starve/live in a box I felt treated very poorly by not only those who sneered at my “nearly new” car when I pulled into the food cupboard parking lot (sorry – was I supposed to park somewhere else and walk over?) but also by workers in the various agencies who made me feel like I was making extra work for them by being laid off and not being independently wealthy.
    I know it would be surprising for Mr. Uneducated Self-Elected Morality Standard-bearer to learn that a very small percentage of people who receive public assistance actually WANT their lives to be this way. He would be equally astonished to learn that his completely useless opinions will earn him neither respect nor tolerance, as he grows up to become a bitter, lonely old man.

  13. 14

    I have an honest question (I’m not Murican):
    What are people supposed to do once they reached the end of those 36 months?
    Are you supposed just to starve?
    It’s ridiculous to assume that this will have any effect apart from making people suffer and that those who reach those 36 months are just lazy fucks.
    My dad started working at 16, he retired at 63. In that time he collected much more than 36 months of unemployment. The last stretch was before retirement because when you lose your job as a mechanic at 61 nobody will hire you as long as there’s anybody younger than that….

    1. 14.1

      There are situations where that limit can be extended. Mine is medical – in currently in Year Two of the Disability Dance.

      Other situations are
      *being under 18 or 50 or older
      *responsible for a dependent child or incapacitated adult
      *are preggers
      *are registered for a work program
      *are in a substance abuse treatment program
      *are in school or a training program
      *work at least 20 hours a week
      *are taking part in some sort of work and training at least 20 hours a week.

      And if you don’t meet any of those situations…then yeah. And from reading this letter, I realized I fucked up the numbers. It’s 3 months in a row in 36 months. Still bullshit, but I’ll add an edit to this post.

  14. 15

    We need government jobs at slightly below the minimum wage not only for the benefit of the recipient but also so that we can create a wealthier nation. And we need a higher minimum wage. When a nation has unemployment, it is like a factory that leaves its workers outside and refuses to run their production lines. Things don’t get made.

    In our nation we refuse to ensure employment because we as a nation don’t understand the basics of economics. We say, “where will the money come from?” As one economist notes, that is like a team scoring a touchdown, getting 7 points and people being concerned about where the 7 points came from? We have a fiat currency. It doesn’t come from anywhere; it just quantifies work received and provides the recipient with a measure of the utility. It should come from the Federal government as grants because we have a fiat currency (states don’t have their own currency).

    What I am speaking of is a branch of economics called Modern Monetary Theory. Until we understand it, we will continue to worry about “our tax money” and continue to make wrong decisions. We will also continue to have a weaker workforce with fewer options.

    1. 15.1

      “We need government jobs at slightly below the minimum wage not only for the benefit of the recipient but also so that we can create a wealthier nation. And we need a higher minimum wage.”

      Um, what? You want to raise the minimum wage, but pay government employee less than that? Um, no. People in government jobs have families and bills and rent and shit. Life at the minimum wage or below sucks hard enough already, kthx.

      I’m not sure where you’re going with the rest of this idea, but yeah, it seems rather BUH to me from that first sentence on.

      Hopefully someone with a better grasp of economics can either speak this plain or something.

      1. I think that George Kirby was suggesting not that civil servants be paid less than minimum wage but that the government should serve as an employer of last resort, providing makework jobs at slightly below minimum wage to absolutely anyone. A better suggestion is the one Jadehawk mentions below, where the government simply provides everyone with a stipend, and doesn’t make them to pointless bullshit to get it.

        1. AH.

          I’m still shaking my head at the “slightly below than minimum wage” because I think if you’re working, you deserve a decent pay. It doesn’t make sense to me to pay anyone a pittance.

          1. The idea is that the pointless makework jobs pay less than ‘real’ private sector jobs, thus encouraging those who can to get one. It’s predicated on the same Protestant work ethic bullshit as the current setup, with the usual claptrap about idle hands, devil’s workshops, and how everyone is born a lazy moocher who can only be made less sinful by constant punishment.

  15. 16

    what we need is to get over the notion that paid labor is required for survival. a lot of basic work can be automated; a lot of work serves no purpose other than circulating money to and from workers; a lot of work exists only because of the over-complicated bureaucratic patchwork “safety net” bullshit; etc. If we just let people live, all these make-work jobs could go away to the benefit of pretty much everyone, including the environment.

    And on the other hand, we have a lot of work being done for free or almost free by volunteers. Blogging being one example of that. And these creators are limited in their ability to create by the “need” to also do labor that makes money, even if it’s one of the bullshit jobs as described above.

    tl;dr: basic income, fuck yeah

  16. 17

    Dalillama is correct. It is a government of last resort model. The idea here is to provide incentive to move from the public sector to the private.

    Niki is also correct these are real jobs providing real utility.

    I will leave to someone else the discussion of non job solutions and the argument of moral hazard. It’s not a solution I expect to see in my life time. And it distracts from the primary point.

    The principle point is that government is not constrained by its “debt” and I put that in quotes. For any progressive ideas to succeed, we have to get past the idea that it does. That’s what modern monetary theory does and is the first step towards a full employment economy.

    The easy way to say it is … unemployment means government deficits are too small. This is simply of matter of math in that Public Spending + Private Spending = GDP in a closed economy.

    Those are the broad strokes. For a bit more, I pass you to Warren Mosler:


Comments are closed.