Sure, except they are removing the federal support without increasing the local support. In addition, local governments are already quite pinched and where would the funding come from?

2. One of the biggest problems the US is facing currently is the inability to pay for entitlement programs

Food stamps is a drop in the bucket compared to the big two, but politicians refuse to change those programs that take up 2/3s of the federal budget.

Even when spent properly, they're usually spent on processed poor quality food because that's the cheapest stuff around.

For people that are hungry, some poor quality food is still better than no food.

4. Any entitlement programs reduces the incentive to work and become self-sufficient.

Citation?

5. Having been on food stamps myself, I can tell you right off the bat, it's absolutely degrading.

Doesn't this defeat point #4? It's degrading but people want to stay on it.

Yeah, we have historically low tax rates for the modern era. Raising taxes instead of lowering spending does the same thing to the balance sheet

>4. Any entitlement programs reduces the incentive to work and become self-sufficient. As much as this makes you cringe, it is true nevertheless.

This isn't necessarily true. Having the ability to eat reliably is quite useful when shifts may be irregular. This allows you to take higher paying, but more irregular work, providing a more dynamic labor force. This reason alone makes me suspect basic income instead of SS and SSDI and welfare and wic and foodstamps may be a good model for the 21st century.

This is false. The charts frequently used to support this all conveniently exclude the 19th century.

Yeah, after socialism became a fad, we began to tax the living daylights out of anything that moved and had money. Go back to the 19th century and you'll see a different story.

As they should

SNAP is not charity, its a public benefit program (while charities may overlap with public benefit programs in what they do, they aren't the same thing.)

Also, SNAP is distributed at the local level. Its funded at the federal level (IIRC, actually it is funded in part at the federal level, and there is a cost sharing arrangement), which gets resources from where they are to where they are needed.

> And there is a lot of fraud in the food stamp program.

That's actually a separate point, from the one it is included with; please quantify "a lot", and explain why this justifies throwing the baby (legitimate beneficiaries) out with the bathwater (fraudsters).

> One of the biggest problems the US is facing currently is the inability to pay for entitlement programs.

The long term costs of the major entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare) is an issue, true. OTOH, SNAP (in total) is a negligible cost compared to those programs (SNAP has on the order of $80 billion in total costs, Social Security alone has around $1.3 trillion.)

> Food stamps are essentially cash. Even when spent properly, they're usually spent on processed poor quality food because that's the cheapest stuff around. Take the funds and spend them at soup kitchens that can leverage their purchasing power and buy high quality fresh food at a discount.

That would be a relevant point to debate -- not to say that I agree, but it would be at least a legitimate subject of discussion relevant to the desirability of the action -- if the House bill transferred the funds from SNAP to "soup kitchens". As it does not, the idea that the money would be better spent that way is irrelevant to the legislative action actually at issue.

> Any entitlement programs reduces the incentive to work and become self-sufficient.

Entitlement programs also increase the capacity to become self-sufficient, whatever effect they have an incentives.

Incentives without capacity are meaningless.

(And the actual structure of SNAP generally places sharp limits on benefit duration if you aren't actually engaged in work or job training programs.)

> Having been on food stamps myself, I can tell you right off the bat, it's absolutely degrading. At the time, they didn't use any kind of cards, you had actual food stamps. There you are, paying with stamps, while everybody else pays with cash. It's like wearing a sign saying "look at me, I'm poor!" and it's humiliating. A more discrete way of distributing help would be far more humane.

As you note in this very paragraph, a more discrete way of distributing benefits than what you experienced is what SNAP is now, since they no longer use stamps. (Of course, to extent that this point retains any legitimacy, it also contradicts point #4 -- being degrading creates an incentive to get off of it, financial incentives aren't the only kind that exist; money, after all, is just a proxy for utility which, at its most fundamental level, is "having experiences you prefer and not those you do not prefer", and degradation is clearly a form of disutility.)

Perhaps there is a better way? We won't know unless we explore the matter.

If you reduce government spending by the amount being cut and not merely shift resources, the people themselves will provide the support that the poor require and that support will exclude fraudsters to a greater degree. You're far more careful with money when you're spending or giving your own.

> SNAP (in total) is a negligible cost compared to those programs

Correct. However, I think an annual program using up $80 billion warrants discussion, no?

> if the House bill transferred the funds from SNAP to "soup kitchens". As it does not

I disagree. If my tax burden is lowered, then I can give the money to the soup kitchen.

However, if the House is simply playing games and shifting the funds elsewhere instead of giving it back, then yeah, we're on the same page.

> Entitlement programs also increase the capacity to become self-sufficient

Not sure what this means.

> a more discrete way of distributing benefits than what you experienced is what SNAP is now, since they no longer use stamps.

How so? They use specialized debit cards that identify you in the same exact way.

Distributing help discretely, in my opinion, is actually delivering food to the door. Which many charities do.

I assure you, the federal government couldn't care less how people feel or whether they are embarrassed.

Perhaps there is. Perhaps isn't a reason to cut funding to what we have.

> We won't know unless we explore the matter.

This is not "exploring the matter".

> If you reduce government spending by the amount being cut and not merely shift resources, the people themselves will provide the support that the poor require

There is no evidence at all to support this claim, and it doesn't even make a lot of sense. We're now supposed to have faith in the invisible hand of the market for charity?

> However, I think an annual program using up $80 billion warrants discussion, no?

There's a pretty big difference between "discussion" and "cutting half the funding". There may certainly be legitimate things to discuss about it, but I haven't yet seen anything even resembling an argument based on anything but magic fraud-resistant charity pixies for cutting the funding being a good idea.