Detractors of food stamps have never argued that it doesn't help people in the short term. Giving money to the poor---or in this case allowing them to "maintain" money as they don't have the expense of food---should help. It's income maintenance.

The argument against it is that it not the federal government's responsibility to subsidize people's food. This also creates a burden on states to administer it. Furthermore, it's a bit infantilizing for the state to "feed you." The responsibility should fall on communities, churches, temples, mosques, schools, and businesses to look out for those less fortunate. If we didn't have food stamps and people in the "government will take care of them" mindset, maybe restaurants would better coordinate how they deal with leftovers. Maybe rich individuals would give more of their time and money to food banks. Americans are very altruistic.

That all said, even as a staunch libertarian, it shouldn't be the first, second, or third concern of conservatives. There's actual bloat and more egregious usurpations of power by the federal government to attack.

I see your argument and agree with some of the ideas you are spreading, and would like to add to it. Schools usually have to rely on the government to subsidize their food program, and most of the schools no long "cook" their food. Many of the items for consumption are microwavable, or ready to pop in the oven. So now the problem becomes nutrition.

I agree with the restaurant idea, however many groceries have tried this only to report that their employees were 'stealing' this food.

It seems like the "about 1 in 5" new yorkers is a bit much to be considering the surrounding communities to support. It weighs too heavily on specific communities, and not enough on the larger city as a whole. Remember that most of the people who need food stamps are the ones who are giving us our coffees in the morning.

One thing that food stamps deliver instead of relying on a church... is a sense of independence.

Of course my ideas at the end are the end goal. We need to be a wealthier nation and not on the financial roller coaster we're on now to live that dream.

One thing you mentioned (that I think we agree on) that I didn't address was the government's low success with our nutrition. We consume a diet high in corn and beef due to subsidies. And our children eat the same cheap goods in schools across America because we have so much of it. Like anything, it's a supply and demand thing, and we've made it cost effective to eat stuff that makes us insulin resistant by the age of 45.

One thing that food stamps deliver instead of relying on a church... is a sense of independence.

Something to add which I always thought was silly...

you can buy ice cream with food stamps.

Stonyfield Chocolate yogurt v.s ben&jerrry's ice cream , Gee which is worse, those who want to dictate what can be purchased are not smart, last time I checked many "healthy foods" were on on the "worse things to eat" list,

You'd prefer if people of a higher caste were able to dictate the dietary options of those of a lower caste, perhaps?

When on the public dole, you give up choices. I'm not saying that's right. But politicians need to feel like they're doing something.

You're completely missing the point of social programs if your concern is still why the gov't has to subsidize basic necessities.

Um, bad news, if you have to use food stamps you are already in poverty.

Hooray for successful social programs!