First off, you can't convince me that school lunch programs were/are a bad thing. It made a hugely powerful impression on me at a relatively young age.
Secondly, my opinion of welfare is probably not too different than your own. It was created and intended as a temporary measure, so that we didn't revert to the kind of deal the Victorians had in London, etc. It was never intended as a "lifestyle," much less as multi-generational.
I've actually given this some thought - the problem with gov't programs in general is that they rarely change to meet the needs of an environment. They don't evolve effectively or efficiently. Fire depts buy special equipment suited to the needs of their environment, whether it be suburban or urban. Same thing for cops and even garbage guys.
So, the question is: why can't social programs meet the needs of their environment as effectively as firemen, cops and trash collectors?
You are asking the wrong question I think.
Trash is simple, Fires are simple, Law enforcement is simple compared to human nature.
Most Americans are akin to water in how they deal with life. They flow to the least resistance.
Not being poor in America though not at all hard, is however not the path of least resistance. Government programs for poor assistance rarely teach folk how to really handle money. If you can't handle money it does not matter how much money someone gives you it won't be long till you are poor again. If you don't believe me google lottery winners who lost everything.
In all the time you were in school did any government institution teach you how to handle money, how to invest it to make more money, how to spend less than you earn and save the difference?
I never run across a single instance of such a program.