You don't argue the merits of something by emphasizing it is the lesser of two evils. One does not ignore one's teenage daughter's proclivity for sleeping around because her brother is a heroine addict. Furthermore, most of the zealots that argue that food stamps should be eliminated don't support oil subsidies. Most conservatives have argued for cutting farm subsidies for decades.
The original thread topic was the absurdity of a lottery winner still being allowed to get and use foods stamps. This is absurd to anybody with an IQ higher than a block of concrete and displays some of the failure of government programs to be adequately managed. I think Kicky has addressed the fraud myth adequately.
Like most who defend government intervention you and others in this thread twist the debate from "should government or private/charities address the food security problem" to "those that support the other than government option want people to starve." Throw in some absurd statements about CEO pay and other various emotional hot button side issues and pretty soon you don't have to think. It just makes you feel good.
The real question is who should be entitled and what parameters should be used to evaluate eligibility. Should women be able to reproduce while on food stamps? Should those on food stamps be allowed cell phones and cable TV and other various non-essentials? Should people receiving food stamps be allowed to purchase cigarettes or be allowed to purchase booze?
If the food stamp programs where suddenly terminated, I doubt starvation would increase overall. It would increase in certain portions of the elderly community and amongst single women with smallest children. Teens and adults won't starve, they will resort to other means. Begging, borrowing, or stealing will no doubt increase. Sitting around starving to death goes against human evolution. The real consequence of terminating food stamps will probably not be starvation.
