Despite the downvotes, you aren't wrong, but probably not for the right reasons. It's a federal program administered by the states, which means inconsistent qu

Despite the downvotes, you aren't wrong, but probably not for the right reasons. It's a federal program administered by the states, which means inconsistent qualification and delivery. Pumping more money into the program doesn't help when the states make up their own rules as to who qualifies and when. Lack of education also doesn't help but was completely glossed over in Bloomberg's assessment of what must have been homeless hipsters inbetween semesters. If you live in the country or the ghetto, just look at what people on EBT actually buy-- unlike WIC there are no stipulations that incentivize people to actually buy healthy food, so you see carts full of Coke and Oreos. Not that I begrudge the poor their vices, but adding more money to this arrangement doesn't magically drive better outcomes. Look at the other phenomenon that occurs with the same demographic groups-- winning the lottery isnt even enough to escape poverty and live happily ever after; they often end up stagnant or worse. You can't just give truckloads of money to the poor and expect it to be spent wisely.