Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
I guess it's absurd to say that anyone who owns any luxury item is therefore disqualified from any public aid or services.
It's like you're suggesting that we just suck it up when someone chooses to spend their food budget on a Cadillac and then applies for food stamps to cover the difference. It doesn't have to be like that. A more rigorous and nuanced method of means testing could solve that easily.

Say you take home $2,500 per month. Rent = $1,000, Utilities $250, Cable/Net = $200, Car payment = 750, Gas = $100, Cell phone=$200. That's all your money and you haven't bought any food yet. Say you need $600 more to buy food every month.

Should the government just give that away?

Or should the government be allowed to evaluate the finances, at least a high level, and determine if there is really a "need"? The government knows what shit costs, that's how they calculate CPI and other economic metrics.

the government could easily say that a reasonable car payment for someone of your income level and geographic region is more like $500 per month. The gov't could use that figure as a 'cap' on the expenditure claim. So now the numbers read like this

$2,500 - Rent - Utilities - Cable - Car (capped at $500) - Gas - Cell = $250

In this example, I believe the government should only give away $350. That plus the additional money that SHOULD be left over makes up a total of $600 needed for food.

Then that citizen has the choice of driving a nicer car but eating less, or eating reasonably and driving a reasonable car. People should not be free to make that choice at the expense of other citizens. The choice should be made at their own expense.