The glibness of the comments here really rubs me the wrong way. A lot of software people - you know, arguably the MOST employable people on the planet - have no hesitation tut-tuting about what The Poors should do while pushing buttons in a comfy chair in an AC office with the knowledge that if anything were to happen, they'd be OK.
News flash, being poor SUCKS, and it means you work your ass of just to get by every day, always in constant fear of the next unexpected event - your car breaks down or you get sick, then you miss a day of work, then you get fired, then you can't find another job, then you're homeless.
It's almost like a bunch of you ready the article and missed the point.
What is the point of the article? I mean besides the we-can-sell-ads-ginning-up-outrage-(which-may-or-maynot-be-misplaced). I'd like to see a "The Last Psychiatrist" like take on it:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...
I'm of the opinion that there should be a small amount of no-questions-asked assistance available, so people don't have to prove to themselves that they are poor in order to receive stuff, but of a limited quality/quantity that people of means will voluntarily not bother. That's an entirely separate discussion, though.
My feelings and expectations of the poor are still extremely negative despite all of this. Those of the folks who have never had to experience it even more so. You would have a hard time of switching EBT to cash in a "moderate" political climate, say nothing of the current "Fly this plane into the ground" era.