if you have enough money to spend on tobacco, then you do not need subsidized housing!
I am going to have to disagree with you on that one - however, I am not saying "I am right" and "you are wrong". This is just my opinion - I think your argument is logical to an extent but IMHO, the gov't should not play morality police even if they are assisting one of their citizens (or should I say "subjects"?)
First, be aware that the disparity of the rich and poor is growing at an alarming rate. This interview with Bill Moyers and Paul Krugman is good case in point:
http://vimeo.com/92308666
http://billmoyers.com/episode/what-the-1-dont-want-you-to-know-2/
Little by little many more of us are going to find ourselves in a similar situation with those who require subsidized housing. Right now the system is rigged against the average person and its only getting worse.
To say that these people don't deserve a single luxury seems extreme to me. Should they only be allowed to go from home to work and back again? Can they rent a DVD? Or is that a luxury too? Can they take a drive in the country? or should they just sit in the dark until the next day comes and then work another day?
A human being needs more than just a roof over their heads and food in their belly to truly be called living. And if something is legal, the gov't shouldn't infringe on someone's pursuit of happiness.
Now if I wanted to, I could probably argue just as persuasively the opposite POV. Just my opinion and in this day and age, doesn't count for much. :
:
