Now, as far as your question goes - I think a person hurts the 'greater good' if they take things that they know they don't need and could just turn into waste.

That was the first question that popped into MY mind. Small business owners pay shitloads of taxes, but mega-corporations get subsidies. That isn't fair by anyone's logic.

THAT is why I didn't buy the bullshit about Too Big To Fail. All that meant to me was No More Capitalism.

No doubt you remember when Dubya and Dickhead said, '9/11 Changed Everything'. All that meant to me was We Can Do What We Want.

My bullshit monitor is tuned into many different layers of the English language.

To reality.

I'm old enough to remember when insider trading was a big deal!

I also saw a report that Senate members had a ROR on their investments higher than hedge fund managers.

If there is a surprise there that none of them have been in the slightest even censured, much less prosecuted, it is beyond me why there isn't a hue and cry.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) eliminated the time limit for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) during the period from April 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010, unless a State chooses to offer a qualifying work activity.


Generally ABAWDS between 18 and 50 who do not have any dependent children can get SNAP benefits only for 3 months in a 36-month period if they do not work or participate in a workfare or employment and training program other than job search. This requirement is waived in some locations.


With some exceptions, able-bodied adults between 16 and 60 must register for work, accept suitable employment, and take part in an employment and training program to which they are referred by the local office. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in disqualification from the Program. "

And their parents are okay with not taking a $3650 dependent deduction, thus paying more than $1000 in additional tax, so that the kid can get maybe $600 of SNAP for three months?

Fine, that's a net gain of $400 to the US government. Go right ahead.

As I said, it sounds like a net gain for the US government.

further, being from a "well off family" does not mean that an individual is sharing in their families well offness.

The families are apparently deciding to forego claiming the kids as dependents, which in all likelihood is a greater cost than the benefits received during the 3 months that the adult child could qualify without participating in a state employment program.

Which I technically didn't need because I wasn't starving in the streets. But I was unemployed and looking for employment, so didn't feel the least bit guilty about it.

In the examples you give, I'd say no, but YMMV.

On the other hand are families that scrape by buying the cheapest food they can to put something on the table who reject public assistance out of pride. In that case, they should swallow that pride and accept the help, if for no other reason than qualifying for school free lunch helps fund the school cafeteria.

No one has to help them.

Same could be said of anyone who gets help from any outside, charitable source. Say the church helps pay the rent (I've seen that). Should that reduce one's eligibility for public benefits? I think it is a bit Republican to say yes there.

hell yes it's moral to take whatever you can get.

If The People don't want someone to have assistance, then their congress critters shouldn't give it to them.

...to the assisted monies and tax breaks given to corporations and that bemoaning benefits given to the poor, the old, children and students is a wasted effort, because no matter how many "unworthy" members of the aforementioned you ban from assistance, billions will be wasted on huge, wealthy entities.