Food stamps are one of the few forms of welfare that I wholly support, with the proviso that there has *got* to be a better way of doing this.
Free public school breakfasts and lunches are a start, but there almost has to be indoctrination, an insistence that kids eat healthy food until their bodies are trained to like healthy food. Essentially forcing children to eat, and grading them down if they fail to comply. (Granted if it is food they *can't* eat, from allergies or intolerance, then their parents can be notified early.)
There are far too many adults in the US who they and their families subsist on rice and beans, and not because they are economically destitute, but out of choice. Giving food stamps to such people is a waste--just give them the sacks of rice and beans, like they do in Mexico. The stuff is dirt cheap, and we have too much of it as is.
The total negative effects of Reagan giving away surplus government cheese was zero, except to the people who received it. It saved the government money for storage, it got rid of cheese that was just going to rot, and the price of retail cheese was unaffected. It was a great lesson in economics.
We have mountains of food that rot every year, so why not give it away, if it doesn't effect the regular retail price? It will save us all money.
Put away your calculator for just a second and think twice about the road you have chosen. The negative effects of the policy you support are far greater than dollars and cents. The chief drawback of this wonderful "give away" you praise was to undermine the pride of poor people who had previously been able to boast that they "refused to accept charity" (which used to be a characteristic of the poor). Call me old-fashioned but I see no "net" benefit to becoming a society where everyone is on the public tit.