Food stamps are degrading and paternalistic, though, by design. Their whole point is "we won't give you real money because we don't trust you to not misuse it."

Eh, there is a reason for this mistrust along with the limits on what you can buy with them in US. My wife used to work in Jewel and she has no end of stories about people and snap cards. Maybe they are paternalistic, because, well, you can't take care of yourself and your family. Little help is needed.

> Their whole point is "we won't give you real money because we don't trust you to not misuse it."

Their whole point is to ensure the money gets used on what it was intended for.

People don't want the "money for the poor" food stamps being used to give the wealthiest citizens a small discount on their Ferrari - which means you then have to start means-testing. In OP's original point, you might be able to give everyone food stamps to basic rice for example without means-testing (because the rich aren't going to worry about going out of their way to pick up a packet of cheap rice).

I mean we could just give money to people instead of bailing out corporations, that would be good enough by me. Or place strict conditions on corporate recipients of welfare. I'm just tired of news like this.

How much money to spend on a decent diet is much easier to ask than how many apples and, if the person wants to substitute apples, how many pears is that?