You want to spend $50 billion a year on food stamps? Ok, slash it out of the military, social security, medicare, the NSA / FBI / CIA / HSA / TSA / whatever. You want universal healthcare, ok, disband the US military, or slash social security in half. Something will have to go, one way or another, sooner rather than later; the piper will get paid.
With a $1.3 trillion deficit, it's irrelevant if you argue that the food stamps are paid for by taxes, or if you argue the military is paid for by taxes, or if you argue social security is paid for with taxes. Because bottom line: $1.3 trillion per year is not paid for with taxes. Something is not getting paid for with taxes, it might as well be food stamps as any other program currently.
As another simple example of the inflation spread - if the Fed holds interest rates down, which is part of what the QE programs do, it generates inflation. When you get a mortgage adjustment at 4% courtesy of that Fed program, it is generating inflation by the difference in money you now have versus what you otherwise would have.
If the Fed props up property values with the QE and trillion dollar mortgage purchase programs, that causes inflation as home owners acquire value they otherwise wouldn't have.
Any artificial value, created by the Fed, and shot into the system, must inherently become inflation. Your dollar loses value accordingly. And since 1967 or so, the dollar has lost about 86% of its value.
Also: in terms of pure investment (not considering the moral good of helping the poor nor the moral evil of enabling freeloaders), even if the stated GDP growth is accurate, there is always the opportunity cost of not doing something else with that money. How much would it increase GDP to build more roads or fund more research?
I'm not arguing against food stamps here, I'm just trying to put this in perspective. And perhaps the answer to my questions is "nobody knows."